Hiding In Plain Jane Sight

Thomas Lindaman writes:

One of the points the Left brings up in their "Republican war on women" rhetoric is how women make $0.77 on the dollar that men make, as Rachel Maddow cited on "Meet the Press."

One tiny problem, Rach. Your facts are wrong.

Kay Hymowitz, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that brings a bit of context into Maddow's erroneous factoid. Seems when you factor in women wanting to be working mothers and working part time instead of full time, women actually make...more than men by comparison.

Wait. If women are making more than men for doing the same job, isn't that... sexist?

At the very least, it's yet another failure in the Left's campaign to invent a "Republican war on women" to hide their shameful past regarding the fairer sex.

Too bad that opinion piece is wrong.

The US Census, September 2011:

"Neither men nor women who worked full time, year round experienced a change in real median earnings between 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the median earnings for men was $47,715 and for women $36,931. In 2010, the female-to-male earnings ratio of full-time, year-round workers was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2009 ratio."

And too bad it's you guys that will always, always be known as the women-haters.  You guys will never be able to "hide" that.

He Didn't Pull The Trigger, So NO CREDIT FOR YOU!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

For Those Who Think Obama Got OBL...

... I have three words for you

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/memo.jpg

Choke on it.

So basically, we're supposed to choke on a memo that proves Obama gave the order to proceed with the raid?  So, because the memo proves he gave the order, it proves he didn't give the order?  Is that what you're saying?  I haven't seen you this smug about a choking since you quoted anti-Semite Andy Martin! lol

I especially find it amusing how right-wingers are claiming the risk profile portion is "wiggle room" to blame things on McRaven if the operation failed.  Not only is that backed up by absolutely nothing, it doesn't even make sense.  The risk factor was very high.  If the situation changed, then the president would need to be notified and decide to change tactics. 

We all know that Admiral McRaven was in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command, and that he carried out the raid.  This is ancient news.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/05/admiral_overseeing_bin_laden_r.html

http://letthetruthout.com/2011/05/william-mcraven-the-bin-laden-raids-mastermind/

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2011/may/05/obama-to-thank-unit-involved-in-bin-laden-operatio/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/william-h-mcraven-univers_n_857584.html



I wonder what McRaven thinks of Obama?

About Obama, without a question to prompt him, [Admiral McRaven] waxes lyrical and at length. The planning and decisionmaking for the bin Laden raid, he volunteers, "was really everything the American public would expect from their national leadership.""The President was at all times presidential," he says. "I would contend he was the smartest guy in the room. He had leadership skills we'd expect from a guy who had 35 years in the military."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102133_2102330,00.html

So I guess George H.W. Bush wasn't responsible for Operation Desert Storm, because Norman Schwarzkopf was in charge?

Commanders-in-chief make decisions and delegate terms and conditions that the commanders in the field are obligated to follow. That's called "leadership."

But to right-wingers, this is a leader:

What's funny, is that if the mission failed, right-wingers would be pointing the finger right at Obama.  Just like they did Carter when the sandstorms occurred.  Don't think for even a split-second they wouldn't blame Obama.  Hell, Lindaman tried (and failed) to blame Obama for the BP spill.

You guys tried this bullshit when the Situation Room photo was released, and you failed there, too.

You right-wingers are only flailing like this, because of Bush's failure.  And also because people like McCain were against going into Pakistan.



Obama deserves huge credit for keeping his promise.

It's hilarious that flag-waving right-wingers out themselves as being completely clueless as to how the military works. lol

You Fluked Up

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Remember Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified before Congress about contraception and women's health issues using a bunch of anonymous sources

And that it was irrelevant if they were anonymous, since it's a proven fact that it can cost over $90 a month?

and the research arm of Planned Parenthood?

Using public data from the National Survey of Family Growth that hasn't been disputed?

Well, she's back, thanks to the Daily Beast announcing her engagement to her boyfriend.

In a bad attempt at humor, Fox News' Monica Crowley tweeted "To a man?" As you might expect, the Left came out an attacked Crowley as hateful and homophobic. (Although I'm not quite sure how asking a legitimate question in today's society where gays and lesbians get engaged all the time would be homophobia, but I digress.)

Because it wasn't a "legitimate question", you liar.  Crowley posted it as a joke, as proven by her comment afterward about how "the left" can't take a joke.  Then after that, she backpedaled by claiming it was a straightforward statement.  Too late, Crowley.  You already tried the "It was only a joke" excuse.

The only way that tweet would be considered a joke, is if one thinks there's something funny about being gay.  She was simply trying to make the old joke that women who are smart and stand up for women's rights are dykes. It was meant to be snarky and demeaning.

It was only a joke up until someone questioned it as a joke, then she claimed it was a "serious inquiry" to take the heat off.

And of course, Lindaman sticks up for the homophobe.

Monica Crowley. Another in a long line of barren spinsters and bitter, unwed shrews on the right.... squawking about family values.

Jealousy is an ugly human emotion, Ms. Crowley. It does not look good on a desperate right wing woman in her 40's.

Hmm... alone and in her 40's?  Sound familiar?  No wonder Lindaman is defending her, no matter what vile things she says.

And, surprise surprise, the Left used Fluke again to further the message that fell flat the first time it was trotted out. First, she appeared on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" (which, by the way, is hosted by a man with  an astounding record of misogyny)

Riiiiight.

to squeeze out just a little bit more of her 15 minutes of fame by being asked to respond to Crowley's tweet. Then, predictably, Huffington Post ran with the story reporting on Fluke's "Ed Show" appearance.

Maybe it's me, but this smells like another set-up using Fluke as the trailing horse. Fluke's testimony has been discredited by many people, myself included,

And you didn't back it up with jack shit, you wannabe.

and she was quickly becoming a forgotten entity except to the Left. With the Daily Beast posting the announcement of Fluke's engagements, it was as though they were trolling for someone on the right to comment. With Crowley's tweet, they got what they wanted, which allowed Fluke to be brought back in by the Left as a "victim of the Republican war on women."

Maybe you guys shouldn't be flaming racists, homophobes, and achingly bitter toward facts about women.

Because, as we've seen, it was so successful the first time they tried it against Rush Limbaugh.

So basically, with that link, you're illustrating that Conservatives like to listen to someone who calls people sluts for no reason?

In that article, Rush Limbaugh, who spent several days lying his fat ass off about Sandra Fluke, claims his ratings are up, and the article you linked to provides no evidence to support his claims.

Rush lost over 35% of his audience in the past year, and he is no longer #1 in his time slot in all but two major metropolitan areas.

But it's better to just go by what Limbaugh says.  After all, he claims he has 20 million listeners... and hasn't budged from that number since 1993. lol

The audience that responds to his vulgarities is not an audience that attracts advertisers.  There probably was a spike in ratings, since there was fresh controversy due to Rush's cowardly comments, but what good are ratings if you lose advertisers?  He is trying to save face. He lost major sponsorships from tons of big, successful companies. Ratings dont mean a thing if you can't sell ads.  And even the ones that stayed with Clear Channel are asking not to be aired during his program.  If you think that isn't important, you need to talk to Glenn Whatshisname (who was saying "my ratings are great!" before he got canned, too).  Oh, wait, Rush also claimed he lost less than 5 advertisers. I guess Lindaman thinks Clear Channel is a non-profit organization now.  lol

Oh, Rush... such an honest man with integrity oozing from every pore, why would anyone doubt you?  JUSTICE FOR LIMBAUGH!

(By the way, to my Leftist counterpart, that was sarcasm. I figured I'd better explain it to you before you wrote another lame blog post about me.)

And yet again, Lindaman has to explain the joke.  Yet again proving Conservatives have no idea what humor is.

Speaking of Limbaugh, he took the bait again by talking about Fluke in connection with one of Fluke's tweets that echoed the sentiments of President Obama regarding student loan debt. There is some merit to Limbaugh's comments about Fluke and the Obama White House working together.

Backed up by nothing. lol

However, he made the same mistake Crowley did by letting Fluke back into the public spotlight.

At this point, it's clear the Left will keep using Fluke whenever they need to for whatever they deem necessary to paint the Right as anti-woman. Of course, in doing so, the Left shows just how anti-woman they truly are.

The left is anti-women because we sit back and let you guys blatantly make anti-women comments and make anti-women legislation?  Perish the thought!

In closing I have two pieces of advice to give. To the Left, keep trotting out Fluke. It will only remind us how silly she and you look.

Backed up by nothing (as usual).

To the Right, ignore Fluke. She is a one-trick pony, and the trick isn't very good.

Except pointing out the obvious: That the right-wingers have the typical Conservative mindset of a pecking order.  Whites are above blacks, the rich are above the poor, straights are above gays, Christianity is above all other religions, and men are above women. 

People being equal?  That's leftist and Communist.

By all means, keep showing the world how you're bad people, by defending homophobic comments.

Why Not Some GOOD News Of The Shooter?

Thomas Lindaman writes:

For weeks, we've heard Trayvon Martin's story, but few attempts have been made to give George Zimmerman the same treatment. Now that Zimmerman has been charged and released on bail, Reuters has given us a more comprehensive view of his recent history. I appreciated this view of Zimmerman, but I have a question:

Why the delay?

With the speed of communication technology these days, I don't think Reuters had to do a lot of research for their Zimmerman piece, certainly not as long as they took to release this piece. A quick Google search
shows Reuters spent a lot of time mentioning Martin's name in various contexts, but very little directly about Zimmerman himself. When mentioned, it was rarely before mentioning Martin's name.

So, why the change of heart? Because their media malpractice has already done its damage.

This is a game the mainstream media play on its consumers: report a story one way until their desired effect is reached, then do a story on the other side so they can claim to give balanced coverage of the story.
Of course, the magnitude of coverage blows that notion out of the water to anyone paying attention. If 99% of your coverage is devoted to one side and 1% is devoted to the other, there is no balance, only advocacy.

A nice effort, Reuters, but too little, too late to avoid being guilty of media malpractice.

Actually, most of the articles in the mainstream media have been cautious of how to paint either one of them.

What was stated in those other mainstream articles that was slanted?  That Trayvon was a teenager in high school?  That he was unarmed?  That he had no prior history of violence?  That he wasn't in a gang? That Zimmerman followed him and got out of his vehicle against the advice of the dispatcher?  That Zimmerman shot Trayvon?  These are facts! 

The only annoying mainstream media things I've seen are how lazy they were in showing old pictures of both Trayvon and Zimmerman when newer ones were released, and the idiotic 911 edit made by that NBC affiliate (probably unintentional, but I'm glad NBC fired that producer for pure incompetence if nothing else).

This was just a fluff piece to make Zimmerman look better, and should be viewed as such. Tons of information is missing and downplayed in that fluffnutter piece.  The majority of it isn't even relevant to the case. 

And it sure looks like Reuters bought a bunch of pictures. Copyrighted them, too.  Given all of the attacks and accusations leveled at Trayvon's parents for putting out a few pictures that were only a few years old, we now know that Zimmerman's family had put out a picture that was 11 years old, pictures in that article were over 20 years old.  But that whole Reuters story lacks sources throughout, and is clearly biased. Was that part of the deal to get the photos? I don't recall reading an in-depth article with so little in the way of crediting sources!  The problem with that lengthy pro Zimmerman article is that the majority of statements about his life are simply anecdotal. They are not backed up by citing the source nor by giving any "official" facts. If this article was a college paper, it would be graded a "D" because it lacks sources and citations.

You majored in journalism, Lindaman.  You know this to be true.

Notice that many of the "facts" noted in the Reuters article only match previous stories told by Zimmerman's family during their media tours?

I never felt Zimmerman went after Trayvon with the intention of killing him.  Nor have I ever believed Zimmerman was a flaming racist that just hates all black people, nor do I believe Zimmerman said "coons" on the phone.  But I do feel he profiled Trayvon, and that made Trayvon "suspicious" in Zimmerman's eyes. Zimmerman already had a black subject steal items from his own porch, and the police let one suspect Zimmerman reported get away because they arrived too late.  That's why Zimmerman says to the 911 operator how those "assholes always get away."  Zimmerman was pissed and wasn't going to let this one leave.

He was taught in Neighborhood Watch not to follow people, and not to carry a gun. Zimmerman should have waited for the police in his truck, and he should have stopped following Trayvon and immediately returned to his truck, as he was advised.

We know the homicide detective at SPD felt Zimmerman was lying, because his statements were inconsistent.  He also told a contradictory story of events to his own father.  Heck, Zimmerman was even inconsistent at the bond hearing, when he stated he thought Trayvon was just a few years younger than him.  He clearly calls him a "kid" to the dispatcher.  Why would an innocent person lie?

Also, the screaming 911 call favors Trayvon, because the person screaming for help simultaneously stops screaming when the fatal shot was fired, and never screams again.  If it was Zimmerman screaming for help, he would have continued to scream for help.  We don't need professional voice experts or family members to analyze the screaming voice, this is common sense.  Whoever that was crying for help was incapacitated to complete the cry for help. We hear the person yell “Heeeee…” and then the gunshot put an end to the yelling. It was Trayvon screaming for help. 

And even if we ignore those obvious facts, and pretend it was Zimmerman screaming for help, it doesn't sound like his head is being repeatedly smashed into concrete while he's screaming, does it?  He did get some scrapes on his head during their scuffle, but nobody seemed concerned about getting x-rays for head trauma.

Regardless, I think the prosecution bungled things by charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.  Unless they're holding out some breakthrough evidence, that's going to be tough to prove.  Manslaughter would've been a better charge.  Zimmerman could very well walk.

Sanford Police made a decision to not charge, even as the homicide detective asked for a manslaughter charge. He was overruled by the powers that be.  They dismissed it before they truly looked at all the evidence, or dismissed it without looking for further evidence.  SPD dropped the ball, especially for not testing Zimmerman for drugs and alcohol, which they did to Trayvon's corpse. 

But I blame Zimmerman for the position he's in today. It's his own fault. He made a really bad judgment call.  You can’t shoot someone simply because you've decided you don’t like the way the fight is going.   Zimmerman had no right to pursue, while armed, a neighbor whom he believed to be a criminal without any justification for such belief. Someone chasing you through the dark is a threat, and Zimmerman had no special right to harass and threaten his neighbors by randomly pursuing them their own neighborhood.  Pursuing a stranger through the dark, while armed, is not a "neutral" event. It is an aggressive act against another human being. Ignoring any events that occurred after that, Zimmerman was the aggressor who deliberately put another human being in fear of their personal safety. 

That piece is an entertaining read, to be sure.  But it sure isn't journalism.

Because Al Sharpton, That's Why!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

No Comment, Leftists?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/after-brutal-string-of-black-on-white-violence-in-the-name-of-justice-for-trayvon-beck-asks-where-al-sharpton-is/

"Ooo!  Ooo!  Pick me!  Pick me!"

My first comment is more of a question: Who is Beck? lol

The rest of the comments will focus on the cases in that link:

The first case:

Gee, wonder why the suspect would claim to the police (after the fact), that he was distraught over the Trayvon case?  Couldn't possibly have some ulterior motive, could he?  Nah...

Regardless, when he was found he was immediately arrested and charged.  Well, that settles that.

The Owens case:

Owens yelled racial slurs, and ran to a neighbor's house pulling out butcher knives when he snapped at the kids. His own white neighbor said he probably did as much to instigate the incident.  But I'm sure that mob attacked Owens because he was a perfect gentleman to the kids.  They just wanted... justice for Trayvon?!?

But hey, Owens sister said she overheard one of the assailants mention Trayvon after the fact!  Funny, no other witness can corroborate that story, according to police.  Hmmm... and the police said: "The Trayvon Martin case definitely was not the motivating factor." Hmm...

Did he deserve a mob attack?  Hell no.  But maybe Owens should have done what Zimmerman should have done... let the police handle the kids.  Don't go screaming slurs while waving knives. Sheesh!

Regardless, when the suspects are found, will they be arrested arrested and charged?  If not, then you'll be able to open your yapper.  In fact, one's already been arrested and immediately was charged... so much for that.

The gasoline dousing case:

Nothing in that article says anything about Trayvon. 

Regardless, when the suspects are found, will they be arrested and charged?  If not, once again, then you'll be able to open your yapper.

I guarantee you, the other suspects will be immediately arrested and charged when they're caught.

If Zimmerman was arrested and charged to begin with, it wouldn't have left the local news, and you wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Earlier this month, two white guys shot five black people (killing three) in Oklahoma. The shooter had made racial comments. And guess what?  There wasn't an uproar!  Do you know why? Because the authorities actively investigated the case, and made arrests (just like in these cases).

Getting the point yet, rightards?  Nah, they never will.  To them, Trayvon deserved what he got,  because... Al Sharpton.

More Scary Black People!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Since the start of the coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, one
phrase has been uttered, put on signs and clothing, and printed in the
media: Justice for Trayvon. Now that George Zimmerman has been released
on bail, we're getting a vastly different view of what the pro-Trayvon
side sees as justice.

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/12/twitter-lynch-mob-predicts-riot-if-zimmerman-is-acquitted/

http://twitchy.com/2012/04/11/twitter-lynch-mob-wont-it-be-great-when-zimmerman-gets-raped-in-prison/

http://twitchy.com/2012/03/24/countless-death-threats-against-zimmerman-man-yet-proven-guilty/

http://twitchy.com/2012/03/29/this-still-exists-killzimmerman-twitter-account/



And it doesn't stop there. There are even death threats against the judge who set Zimmerman's bail.


Of course, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton, Travyon's parents, Travyon's
parents' lawyers, the pro-Trayvon media, and the Left has been silent on
the issue. I guess when you're too busy trying to convict a man before
he's been tried in a court of law, being civil just doesn't enter the
equation.

You didn't even want Zimmerman to be tried in a court of law, remember? 

Up until he was charged, all we've heard from you right-wingers is "Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin and shoot him because... Al Sharpton."

Right-wingers don't see the danger in creating a society of vigilantes... until the vigilantes are some black Twitter ranters. NOW, vigilantism is an issue!

And yet again, we have a "Never mind Trayvon!  See these scary black people?" entry.  But don't worry, I'm sure you have the "courage and conviction" to start making citizen's arrests. 

If a handful of retarded posts constitutes a lynch mob, then your blog is a goddamn holocaust. lol

I remember all those tweets about how Casey Anthony should be killed. How's that working out?  Real killers don't advertise. 

You actually don't believe Sabryna Fulton and Tracy Martin aren't getting hate mail?  Retardation goes both ways.  The difference is that Trayvon can't get death threats from right-wingers... since he's already dead.  The best you guys can do is say Trayvon deserved it because he's a thug.

But I agree, those tweets are totally in the wrong!  Zimmerman doesn't deserve that!  Especially since he's a minority with a questionable past.  Zimmerman doesn't deserve to be followed and killed!  Um... wait a minute...

Karma's a bitch, eh George?

Fighting the Tide(s)

NOTE: Updated with new information!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Last year's hot cultural fad was Astroturf Wall Street.

But Lindaman, I thought they were just a one weekend thing, when nobody was there?

The media fawned over them like Media Matters fawns over George Soros.

Just as a reminder: Lindaman claimed Media Matters "loops back" on itself to prove things.  Then when Lindaman was asked to prove his claim, he couldn't.  He also claimed Media Matters lies, then when asked how, he provided a link to anti-Semite Andy Martin. lol

They seemed to reach across the country and around the world.

Even in Des Moines, Iowa.

"Seemed"?

Now, there isn't much coverage of Astroturf Wall Street.

There was coverage to begin with?

Not even the fawning media seem to care about those brave men and women standing up against corporate greed (while using items created by the very "greed" they're against) and representing the 99% who are mad that 1% of the population has so much wealth (but can't seem to get away from using Apple products, with one of the higher profit margins in industry today).

Yet again, Lindaman proves he doesn't know the difference between economic injustice in corrupted capitalism, and... simple commerce.  Big shock there!

Did Apple do this?  Or this?

This is why Lindaman will never understand.  Not that he's biased, since the company that did these things is... Wells Fargo.

And what's more, they're bad with the money they DO have. Seems Astroturf Wall Street is...running out of money!

But Lindaman!  It's totally astroturfed with a gazillionares paying for everything!  They can't run out of money!

Oh noes!  OWS is going to be gone by the end of the month!  Wait... that article was from March...

Gosh! Who didn't see THAT coming? I mean aside from the Leftist piece of monkey crap

BURN!!  lol

Lindaman's trying to cover up the fact that he first started using "monkey" in posts relating to blacks, by slipping it in this post.  Won't work. Too late!

Reminds me of that SNL sketch, with Satan talking to his underlings:

Satan: You monkey warts! You... you maggot monkeys! I will slice open your monkey bellies, and your blood will spill from your monkey bowels!

Underling 1: You know what occurred to me? Just think how empty that sentence would have been without the word "monkey".

Satan: What?!

Underling 2: Easy, big fellow!

Satan: Big fellow?! You dare address me as anything but Lord of Evil, or, at the very least, Master of Darkness?!

Underling 1: Or, how about, Lover of the Word "Monkey"?

who said Astroturf Wall Street was "just getting warmed up" and "likely to be even bigger than last year."

Lindaman, not being the sharpest tool in the shed, didn't understand the multiple meanings in "Just getting warmed up."

First, it was a reference to the fact that Lindaman was also lying about Global Warming in that particular post.

Also, it was in reference to the Spring Awakening of Occupy Wall Street, which we'll cover in a minute.

But not to worry! Guess who's bailing out Astroturf Wall Street? Why it's Corporate America! The same Corporate America these bozos are protesting AGAINST!

Yet again, Lindaman is clueless.  It's about economic injustice.

Regardless:

The General Assembly, the group’s open legislature, voted en masse to decline a donation from music mogul Russell Simmons, who wanted a hand in helping the protest shape demands (spawning a rumor that he’d asked the protest to endorse an album in exchange for $20,000).

Maybe the Leftist moron can explain away this doctored photo...by the "big" Astroturf Wall Street...

ROFL! That picture was from back in October!



Where does AdBusters say that picture is real, Lindaman?  Since AdBusters is behind everything, remember? 

Oh, it was just some troller.  Sorry, it isn't like when Glenn Beck lied about his numbers. lol

That trolling picture was pointed out to be fake by "leftist" websites, in fact.  Bwahahaha!

These pictures are real, taken at around the same time. 

Here's another.

Here's another, in Denver of all places.

And one more just for fun.

Maybe you can "explain away" those. lol

Or maybe he'd like to explain how a group that was supposedly so strong is needing a comeback...

Because the weather's warmer now, Lindaman.  Time to regroup!

So you seem to think altering strategy is a sign of failure?  Well, you'll be pretty sad about this then. hehe

Maybe they can get money from George Soros...but he's not funding Astroturf Wall Street... except the Tides Foundation (the same Tides Foundation funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute) gave trust money to Adbusters...the Canadian group who was responsible for starting up Astroturf Wall Street. So, in other words...Soros funded Astroturf Wall Street.



Lindaman was hoping to pull a "Six Degrees of Separation" way to connect Soros to OWS.  "He donated money to this Tides Foundation, and they gave money to a magazine, and that magazine came up with the idea of OWS.  And even though the magazine doesn't control OWS, that doesn't matter.  Thus, Soros controls OWS!"

But Lindaman, as usual, didn't do any real research.  And it bites him again.

The Tides Foundation isn't a "General Fund" pot. It's what's known as a "pass through" fund.  Do you know what even means, Lindaman?  Probably not, because you're always so damned clueless (and unlike you, I have proven my assertion that you're clueless).

A "pass through" fund, means the Tides Foundation a donor directed fund. That means the donor gets to decide where his money goes.

And guess what?  None of Soros's Tides Foundation money went to AdBusters.  What part of "Our grants to Tides were for other purposes." do you not understand, Lindaman?  Can you not read?

Both Soros, and Kalle Lasn (founder of AdBusters) have made it very clear that not one penny of AdBusters' money came from Soros.  Directly or even indirectly.  Hell, Lasn has no bones about saying they would love to have some Soros money. And Soros has no problem saying he likes many of OWS's ideas.  So they aren't even trying to distance themselves!

George Soros has never, ever, directed any of his money to AdBusters. In fact, he had never even heard of it at that time. The $27,000 that was last donated by Soros to the Tides Foundation (years before OWS was even an idea BTW), sure didn't go to AdBusters.

Now, for the millionth time, Lindaman... where is your evidence that any of Soros's money went to AdBusters? 

You're making the assertion, Lindaman... so the burden of proof is on you to present evidence to support the claim.

Lindaman has absolutely nothing to support his assertions, and yet he still believes them.  That's, my friends, is why he's a Republican.

Lindaman's just mad because it's an easily proven fact that the Teabaggers were astroturfed, with direct ties through right-wingers like Dick Armey, and supported by Fox News.

So, when is Soros going to spring for the OWS luxury tour bus? lol

Soros did, however, donate to Amnesty International.  Which you never will, because... you're a bad person.

Of course, the Leftist piece of monkey crap won't tell the truth about that...or anything else for that matter.

Still waiting for you to back up that assertion, Lindaman.  I've already backed up my assertion that you're lying.

Hell, I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertion of "pimp-slapping."  You've had nearly a month, and you're still backing down from that.

Now, onto your assertion that OWS is dead.  First, let's check out things before the Spring Awakening (which was when Lindaman's post was made, totally not timed by Lindaman on purpose, of course):

April 24th:

"Apologize For Me Being Wrong!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

In every sports event, there is a play or a player that affects the outcome. This is known as a game-changer.

Recently in the Trayvon Martin situation, there has been two game-changers, both of them supporting previous posts on the subject matter.

Lindaman must be referring to somebody else's posts, as we'll see. lol

First, there was the apology issued by George Zimmerman. He came off as humble, repentant, and dare I say it likable! Far from the monster the Leftists have painted him,

Wanting Zimmerman taken to court for shooting an unarmed teen that he was following, definitely equates as "leftists painting him as a monster".

Right-wingers certainly haven't tried to paint Trayvon and his family as monsters, have they?  It would be almost impossible for me to find such a right-winger, wouldn't it?

Well... except in Lindaman's very own comment box of this very post. Warchickenhawk strikes again!  lol

Zimmerman came off fairly well in the opinions of legal experts.



Lindaman, nowhere in the link you provide above, do any legal experts refer to Zimmerman as "coming off fairly well" in terms of his behavior or his apology.  They only refer to his lawyer's tactics.  You might be able find some talking heads somewhere that state what you're claiming, but it sure isn't in your source.  Yet again, you have proven that you can't even read your own sources!

On the other hand, Trayvon Martin's parents came off as petty, refusing to accept his apology (in a statement issued by their lawyer).  According to the lawyer, Zimmerman's apology was self-serving and insulting to the family. Of course, that's to be expected. He doesn't want to give the impression the apology was actually worthwhile.

Considering it took Zimmerman nearly two months to apologize, that's pretty funny. And Warchickenhawk is wrong, you can make a public statement.  The fact that Zimmerman waited until the world was watching him on television certainly wasn't self-serving though, correct?  Especially since just a couple of days earlier, Trayvon's parents made it clear that now it wasn't the appropriate time for an apology.  Then, Zimmerman did it anyway.  Totally not self-serving, though.

Oh, and one other thing:  I don't want to nitpick too much on this, but Zimmerman really didn't "apologize".  He said he was sorry, but in this case he meant "sorry" as in "I feel bad for you."  It's like when Bush said he was "sorry" to the Chinese government about the spy plane crash incident.  To apologize for something would mean Zimmerman was accepting fault.  He didn't.  I'm actually very surprised you right-wingers aren't making that clear!

But anyways...

"How petty, not kissing the ass of the man who shot your son!"

Missing in this is what the parents actually thought. Issuing a statement through an attorney is still third-party communication instead of direct communication. After all, Trayvon's mother, Sybrina Fulton, said on "Today" she felt the shooting was an accident. Here is a direct quote from Fulton:

One of the things that I still believe in a person should apologize when they really...when they are actually remorseful for what they done. I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back.

She has since retracted her statement,saying she felt Zimmerman stalked and murdered her son. However, given the context of her original statement (which she claims was misconstrued), I don't think her retraction makes much sense. Might that have been the idea of a lawyer to issue a retraction? One can only guess, but my guess is it was a lawyer's idea.

Well, of course you would. lol

But Zimmerman's apology was totally not his lawyer's idea, right?  Well, of course not!

When Sabrina Fulton said it was "an accident", she clearly means the circumstances of them crossing paths were an accident.  She didn't mean Zimmerman "accidentally" followed Trayvon in his truck, "accidentally" got out of his truck against the advice of the dispatcher, "accidentally" pointed the gun at Trayvon and "accidentally" shot him.  Sheesh!

She didn't retract her statement, she clarified it.  Which she shouldn't have even had to do, since it's obvious what her original statement meant.  But yet again, people are idiots and need things spelled out to them.

The other game-changer involves the Leftist piece of monkey crap

Twice in a row, during posts regarding racism, Lindaman uses the term "monkey".  Yep, it's not Freudian.

And really... "monkey crap"?  That's your idea of a burn?  Is it because your particular Christian branch doesn't allow you to swear strongly?  I've heard weirder things from you, since your own statements reveal that your branch of so-called Christianity doesn't believe in free will.

who said I "smeared" Trayvon's family by suggesting their copyrighting was meant purely as a protective measure. After a bit of digging, I found this piece. I quote from the piece:

According to applications filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office, the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon” were submitted the family’s attorney confirmed last week.

Fulton plans on using the slogans for DVDs and CDs memorializing the murdered teenager.

ROFL!  That quote was in the original link you provided in your previous post!  Did you not read it??

Honestly now... you actually had to "dig" for it... somewhere else?



That is hysterically funny.  Do go on!

Hmmm...sure looks like my "smearing" had more than a ring of truth to it, given the only way for Fulton to make money would be to...copyright Trayvon's name! Funny how copyright law works, isn't it?

First, there's a difference between copyright and trademarks.  The terms are not interchangeable.

Second, Mr. Climate Change Expert/Copyright Lawyer... trademarking a term does not mean they are trying to profit from it.  Distributing memorial materials does not mean they are making a profit from it.  The family has already stated that the trademarks are not for profitable purposes.  You have already been told this.  How is this so difficult for you to understand?

Third, there are good reasons for trademarking the terms.  By trademarking the terms "Justice for Trayvon" and "I am Trayvon", a person who obtains materials that have such terms (be they CD's, DVD's, or other items) will know that such materials have the approval of Trayvon's family.  It's to prevent items (such as CD's, etc) to be made with the intent of making a profit off Trayvon's name.

It's a smart move on Trayvon's family's part.  Because now, if some wise guy hoping to make a quick buck, makes a tee shirt that says "Justice for Trayvon" on the front, with "Shoot the Crackers" on the back, the family can prevent them from being distributed.  Thus preventing the exploitation of Trayvon, and it has the added benefit of preventing right-wingers like you from waving the tee shirt around and yelling
"See?  This is what that Martins really think!"

I won't expect an apology from you, Mr. Leftist Copycat. We both know you lack the guts and the honor to do it.

Lemme get this straight, folks... Responding to Lindaman is apparently "copying" him.  But Lindaman parroting Limbaugh and Beck is totally original. Well, I guess Lindaman would know, since he's a copyright expert now. lol

Lindaman, you claimed Trayvon's family was going to make a 2 for 1 "Justice for Trayvon" hoodie sale.  Apparently that's "guts and honor" to you.  I said you hit a new low, and stated you were smearing Trayvon's family. 

Hmmm... Nope, not going to apologize for that.  Because it was true then, and it's still true now.  But what do you care, right?  To you, this tragedy is just a sports game.

You're simply... a bad person.

Your attempts to double down won't alter those facts.

Answer: Nobody!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Guess Who?
See if you can guess who this individual is.

Lindaman gives it away at the end of the post.  So I'll just say it now.  He claims it's Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  The actual answer is: Nobody, since Lindaman is making up fictional straw(wo)men again.

This individual has...

* allowed a staff member to post anti-Semitic statements, while this individual is Jewish

She didn't "allow" it.  It was an old Facebook post.  And how can a Jewish staff member be anti-Semitic? lol

* spoken at great length about the "Republican war against women" while being a guest on a noted misogynist's talk show

Bill Maher isn't a misogynist, liar.  He's a comedian that calls a spade a spade.  So?

* came out for more civility in politics after the Gabby Giffords shooting, but is known for saying outrageous and untrue things about people on the opposite side of the political aisle

Such as?

* talks at great length about the importance of buying American cars, but drives foreign cars exclusively

Her family does have, among other cars, an Infiniti.  So?  If the American auto industry went under, Americans would have no choice but be dependent on foreign cars. Her comments weren't about what kind of car a person chooses to own, it's about the Obama Administration giving loans to American businesses like General Motors, and how Republicans opposed that.  To right-wingers like Lindaman, owning one foreign car is the same as Republicans opposing stabilizing an entire American industry.  Sheesh!  More manufactured GOP poutrage.  Next we'll see them trashing Obama's "un-Americanism" for eating a taco.

* blamed the President for high gas prices then said we shouldn't "politicize gas prices"

Again, context matters.  Funny how the right-wing websites never post this part of the same speech she made:

"What we are doing in the Democratic Caucus and as we continue to fight to move this country in a new direction is we are working on an energy package that we will bring to the floor by July 4, an energy independence package that will ensure that we can crack down on price gouging, like the legislation that we passed off this floor yesterday, that we can really start to respond to the oil cartel and make sure that they are pursued for the antitrust violations that they engage in, and that we really invest in alternative energy.

The President's remarks during the State of the Union last year were just words. When he referenced his desire to see America end our addiction to foreign oil, nice words, but no action to speak of. Nothing that I can see in any policy is reflective of the words that we heard in this Chamber during that State of the Union. We, on the other hand, are going to make a difference."

In February, when asked about this speech.  She stated:

“What I was referring to in that speech, as I have for many years, is that focusing on fossil fuels and continuing the ‘drill baby drill’ strategy that President Obama rightly referred to the other day in south Florida as ‘a bumper sticker, not an energy policy,’ is not the way to go,” Schultz replied. “We are not going to address gas prices over the long-term because there is — there is no President in the short-term that can really change policy and impact gas prices in a significant way. But what we do need to do is over the short-term and long-term make sure that we are using the ‘all of the above’ strategy that President Obama has employed: more domestic energy production than we’ve had in eight years, making sure that we invest for the future in alternative energy like wind and solar and hydroelectric power, so that we can really start to impact our need to depend on…”

Here's what she said very recently on the gas price issue:

CROWLEY: Let me ask you about gas prices now, over $4 a gallon on average. We all know that when gas prices go up, consumers spend less, and companies tend to hire fewer people simply because their overhead has gone up. Do you worry that these gas prices, should they stay here will inflict some damage on what I think you still admit is a fairly weak recovery?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, as a representative of my constituents, I worry anytime there is an impact on their wallet and on their bottom line. And obviously higher gas prices does that. But that's why I'm really glad to see President Obama focused on an all of the above energy strategy.  Because, you know, previously under the Bush administration, and what the Republicans now under Mitt Romney want to continue, is a "drill, baby, drill" strategy, which is not a strategy, it's a bumper sticker. And it's also sticking our heads in the sand that we're going to be able to continue to rely on our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels for eternity when we know that those are finite. And so we've got to -- while we have the most domestic production that we've had, you know, ever, we also need to focus on investing in biofuels and alternative energy sources like wind and solar so for my children and my constituents' children, we can have an abundant source of energy that's renewable for years to come.

Seems pretty consistent to me.  You may not agree with her, and that's fine.  But where has she been inconsistent?

Also, when did she say we shouldn't politicize gas prices?  I can't find a source for that.

* agreed to a speech before a hate group, only to pull out at the last minute after attention was brought to the story

"There was a miscommunication, she is not speaking to the organization. We never agreed to do a fundraiser, nor this event," Wasserman Schultz spokesman Jonathan Beeton told Sunshine State News.

But hey, there was a flyer, so we must take the "Muslim hate group" at their word!  Right, Republicans?  Certainly you guys aren't party before country or anything...
And even if, in an alternate dimension, she actually did pull out, isn't it awful that someone chose not to speak at a hate group? 

Who in the world could be this two-faced, despicable, and devoid of even some semblance of honor?

Bush happily killed thousands of people based on proven lies, but this is the real villain, folks.

If you guessed DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you'd be right.

You forgot to insult her perm!

Republicans. Next Question?

Thomas Lindaman writes:

For the better part of a year, the Democrats have been floating a trial balloon regarding "the Republican war on women." Every time a women's issue like contraceptives/reproductive rights has come up, the Left has crowed about Republicans wanting to deprive women of their rights. Sometimes, they raise good points, but most of the time they overstate the point (and when I say "overstate" I mean "out and out fabricate for political purposes").

Lindaman backs this up with nothing.  But we'll see how much Lindaman fabricates below:

* Leftists favor abortion, which kills millions of girls worldwide every year, even in America. This is according to the Guttmacher Institute, also known as the research arm of Planned Parenthood.

Ahh... the Guttmacher Institute. Which Lindaman said can't be trusted just a few posts ago.

The abortion mortality rate is less than 1 per 100,000 abortions in countries where
abortion is legal.

Compare that to women who die as a result of giving birth: 10-13 deaths per 100,000.

I guess you right-wingers want over ten times more pregnant women to die!

LOL See how ridiculous your logic is yet?

You right-wingers want to bring back "back alley" abortions, which would kill far more girls. So nice try.

* After being at the forefront of fighting against sexual harassment, Democrats have found themselves to be the harassers, as in this case as reported by the Daily Caller.

The alleged harassed person was a guy. How is that a "war on women"? Can't you tell the difference between a man and a woman? That would explain you liking WARCHICK-ENHAWK. lol

Regardless, it's the Democrats that push legislation against sexual harassment. Sure, you're going to find harassers on both sides. But which are trying to pass laws to do something about it?

* Women make less than their male counterparts in the Obama Administration, as revealed by the 2011 annual report on White House staff.

The President makes $400,000 per year, and he is a male. That skews the median, and you know it.

Show us where a woman is working the same job for the same length of time as a man in the Administration, and is getting paid less for it.  Their pay is equal.

The first bill Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A bill that the Republicans fought against (of course).

But it's the Democrats that discriminate against women. Right. lol

* Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen attacked wife of Republican presidential nominee Ann Romney, accusing her of not knowing anything about economics because she never worked "a day in her life." By the way, there are a number of working mothers out there who do know a thing or two about economics because they're responsible for their household budgets.

Mitt dragged his wife into this by claiming that she reports to him on women's economic issues. The public has the right to evaluate the credibility of his adviser.

Hilary Rosen said:

"With respect to economic issues, I think actually that Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their families and the like. But he doesn't connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, 'Well, you know my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues and when I listen to my wife that's what I'm hearing.'

Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why do we worry about their future.

So I think that, yes, it's about these positions and yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions. But there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney. He just seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women and I think that comes across and I think that that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal."

Rosen was specifically commenting on Ann Romney's fitness as an adviser on women's issues. But don't let a little intellectual honesty cloud your mind, not that you'd consider it in any event. Nuance, check it out.

Rosen should never have apologized. In fact, she should keep saying it every chance she gets. What Rosen said was absolutely correct. Compared to the average woman or working mom, Ann has not worked a day in her life; therefore is not a credible adviser.

The Romneys really can't relate to the problems that everyday Americans go through, and it's insulting every time they pretend to.

Now, let's contrast this to what Mitt Romney said:

"Women who stay at home to raise their children should be given federal assistance for childcare so they can enter the job market and have the dignity of work."
-- Mitt Romney

"Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work."
-- Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is explicitly stating that stay-at-home moms do not work.

But again, in Lindaman's world, it's the Democrats who say that. lol

* Leftists are pro-gun control. Yet, defensive gun uses save the lives of up to 2.5 million people per year, and I'm pretty sure a good chunk of those lives saved are women's.

ROFL! Gun control?!? This is the best you can do?

First, that number is questionable at best.

Second, it works both ways, you know:

A woman that is being physically abused by their partner, has a twenty fold increased risk of the partner murdering her, if the partner has a gun.

But regardless, what in the hell does GUN CONTROL have to do with Democratic and Republican legislation on women's rights?

You guys want to give women the death penalty for having a miscarriage!

But it's the Democrats who hate women, because... gun control?!?

* Leftists, including Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, favor high gas prices.



Politico, who first posted this lie (and right-wingers ran with it), had to correct the article:

An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the testimony of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. He did not say that the Energy Department isn't working to lower gasoline prices directly. Rather, when Rep. Alan Nunnelee asked Chu whether the department's "overall goal" is to "get our price--" , Chu interrupted him and said: "No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy," adding that the administration's policies will "help the American economy and the American consumers."

So does his boss.

That's not true either.

Oh, and have you heard the latest?

That, in turn, hurts families. And last time I checked, women were a part of families, too.

Aside from the fact that these are lies, even if it was true... what in the hell does gas prices have to do with legislation regarding women's rights?

That's like saying 14,000 women die from automobile accidents each year (which they do), so higher gas prices save women's lives.

Really, Lindaman... this is just ridiculous logic.

* For years, the Left has seen nothing wrong with the sexualization of young girls,

The link you provided says nothing about "the left sees nothing wrong with the sexualization of young girls."

saying "they're going to learn about sex eventually," a line they use to justify distributing contraceptives to children.

Hmm...parents can opt out, and it comes with mandatory counseling....yeah, total act of irrational insanity here. Massachusetts: The state that knows kids are going to have sex, because they're not retarded.

I don't agree with kids as young as 12 having sex with other kids, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If this means fewer middle/high schools pregnancies and the problems they bring with them, the better.

Oh, and distributing contraceptives to teenagers, does not affect the teenage sex rate.

Let's look at right-wing states, shall we?



In right-wing hillbilly states, like Mississippi, they carry their incest-babies to term, like god intended. lol

Studies show how pregnancy rates decrease when contraceptives are made easily available - across all ethnicities. Especially when coupled with actual sex education, instead of ignorance education.

Preparation is not encouragement.

But hey, to right-wingers, giving kids fire extinguishers would cause them to become arsonists.

So, who's really waging war against women?

Until you right-wingers stop fighting every single shred of legislation that protects women's rights, and stop making anti-women legislation, the answer will always be the obvious one: Republicans.

Oh, and guess what? Women agree that it's Republicans. Because they aren't stupid.

Your lying ain't working. lol

Bullshit Indeed

Thomas Lindaman writes:

As Penn and Teller Would Say...
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/george-zimmerman-goes-to-jail-as-martin-family-exults/

“We simply wanted an arrest; we wanted nothing more, nothing less,” said Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton. “We just wanted an arrest, and we got it and I say thank you, thank you Lord, thank you Jesus.”

She just wanted an arrest...and to be able to trademark phrases connected to her son...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-family-looks-trademark-am-trayvon-justice-142131528.html

You know what the funniest thing is? No matter what happens to George Zimmerman from this point forward, it will never be enough to sate the Left. Zimmerman could be tried, convicted, thrown in jail, put on death row, and killed...and the Left won't care. They will use Zimmerman as a punching bag for decades to come to "prove" how racist the world is.

But let's not let the truth get in the way of a 2 for 1 "Justice for Trayvon" hoodie sale...

Well, Lindaman has hit a new low this time.

Linked in the article above...

"The family is not attempting to profit from Trayvon Martin's death. A trademark registration is necessary to issue cease and desist letters for those exploiting Trayvon Martin's name. The family is grateful for the outpouring of support and attention drawn to this injustice. In this case, the trademark filing is the first step in weeding out those using Trayvon's name in bad faith. The family is also setting up a foundation that will assist other families in their fight for justice, but has not filed trademarks for profitable purposes."

Trayvon's family is doing this for the very opposite reason you're stating.  So much for your claims of "waiting for evidence."  You don't even look at the evidence that's right there in the articles you link to.

It never ceases to amaze me how slimy the right-wingers can get.

An unarmed teenager was shot, through a confrontation with someone who was following him against the advice of the police. Then the shooter wasn't even charged, after the shooter's father (a retired magistrate) paid a visit to the police station.  People were not happy about this.  If Zimmerman was charged to begin with, this issue wouldn't have left the local news.  That's what people like Lindaman don't understand.

But no, the right-wingers have to smear Trayvon by using fake pictures and fake facebooks. And now they're lying about his family.

People don't need Zimmerman to prove racism.  They have right-wingers like you, Lindaman.

As far as Penn Jillette, he thought what Obama said to Trayvon's family was beautiful.

So we all know what Penn would say about Lindaman's posting about Trayvon's family:

"WHY AREN'T YOU LEFTISTS SCARED?!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/suited-booted-and-armed-unbelievable-audio-from-the-new-black-panthers/

For any of you still thinking the reaction to the Trayvon Martin shooting is about justice really need to t listen to the audio from the New Black Panther Party conference call. These jerks are on your side, and your
silence will embolden them to take action.

And guess who they'll be coming after sooner or later. That's right. White Leftists who they have used to get to this point. See, the New Black Panther Party looks at things the same way you do: through a racial prism. The only difference? They're not cowards. They will act on what they say, and nothing you can say or do will stop them from running roughshod over you.

I can already hear you white Leftists cowards saying, "But they don't represent me! I just want justice for Trayvon Martin!" Too bad. You created this environment for the New Black Panther Party to fester. And now, you're reaping the rewards of that, including having the Neo-Nazis show up.

Now, before you get too defensive, let me tell you I don't want the Neo-Nazis anywhere near this situation for the same reason I don't want the New Black Panthers involved: their presence doesn't help. What will help is for people to stand up to both the Neo-Nazis and the New Black Panther Party and tell them to get the hell out of the way. That includes you, too, Reverends Jackson and Sharpton.

And that includes all you pieces of Leftist monkey crap that enabled them, too.

You all say "Justice delayed is justice denied." Just what kind of justice is getting done by the actions of the New Black Panther Party or the Neo-Nazis?

None, that's what.

First, they're not Neo-Nazis.  They're "a civil rights group" according to Fox News affiliates. lol

You know how leftists are reacting to it?  They don't give a shit.

Two insignificant hate groups are trying to get attention by exploiting the situation.  What else is new?

The difference is that you guys are taking a lunatic fringe (who were denounced by the real Black Panther Party) and elevating them to the level of gods.

People wouldn't even know who these nutballs were if you right-wingers weren't shining spotlights on them to distract from the fact a person with Skittles got shot by a stalker.

"Never mind that a guy shot someone after stalking him!  See these scary black people?!?  They're coming for us all!"

The NBPP should be paying you right-wingers for the grandiose publicity. 

By elevating them the way you are, you are enabling them, just like you do with terrorists.  You think these people are as powerful as Magneto.

But again, you're just parroting Limbaugh.

Here's leftist cowardice.

Here's right-wing bravery.

Right-wingers are shivering in fear of the awesome power of... a handful of nuts.

But the left are the cowards. lol

I apologize profusely that "the left" isn't frightened of them the way you guys are.

P.S.: Anyone find it amusing that during a rant about scary black people, Lindaman slipped "monkey" into his post?  Deliberate, or Freudian slip?

"I Pimp-Slapped Him Cause I Said I Did!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Looks like my Leftist doppelganger is obsessed with me yet again.

I'm obsessed, guys!  Since I replied to a post that Lindaman posted about me. lol

He's even revamped his old blog page to something fresh and new...

You're welcome.

and still completely full of lies about me.

Isn't it funny that when I point out Lindaman lies about something, I specifically state what those lies are, and how they are lies.  But when Lindaman says I lie, he not only never says how they are lies, he never even says what the lies are. lol

The latest is his "debunking" of my previous posts about how Leftist cowards like him lack the courage to act on their statements. His method of "debunking" me? Saying he's never seen me do it.

Um... that's not what I said, Lindaman.

Read this very carefully, okay?  When you skim you always screw up.

Here's the responses to you that the people you claim you've taken to task, have stated:

"The police should arrest Zimmerman." - Who said this to you?  And where's the link that proves you took this person to task, and this was their response to you?

"The police should have called for a grand jury." - Who said this to you?  And where's the link that proves you took this person to task, and this was their response to you?

"Zimmerman is in hiding." - Who said this to you?  And where's the link that proves you took this person to task, and this was their response to you?  Is this me you're referring to, or someone else?  If it's me, I responded to this already.

"I'm not in Florida." - Who said this to you?  And where's the link that proves you took this person to task, and this was their response to you?

As I stated in the previous post: You claimed these were the responses from the people you "took to task."  But where is the proof you took them to task, and the proof that the above statements were their responses to you?

Consider yourself pimp-slapped, Leftist coward. And anybody who sees your blog will know it.

Um... how did you pimp-slap me?  Because you just said you did?  Do you think this is an RPG?

By the way, how are you liking the New Black Panther Party putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head?

I think it's hilarious that it took you two weeks to announce this, like it's big news. lol



You still too much of a coward to say something, Oh Pimp-Slapped One?

Um, Lindaman, how can I "still" not say anything about them, if you've never posted about them before? lol

Anyways, since you've brought it up, I'll cover that in the next post.

I can just imagine your conversation in The Podium:

"I totally pimp-slapped that leftist blogger!"
"Hell yeah!"

When the reality is:

"I totally pimp-slapped that leftist blogger!"
"How?"
"I posted that I pimp-slapped him!"
"..."

In order to pimp-slap me, you would have had to link to evidence that these people were talking to you in response to you taking them to task. 

Well, where is it?  Where's the evidence?  Did you forget to provide a link in your post?  If not, that is why I'm calling you a liar.  You didn't confront the fictional people on this matter, nor did they respond back to you with the above statements.

And again, you waived your right to call anyone a coward when you repeatedly backed down from a face-to-face eight years ago. lol

Notice also, that Lindaman still hasn't held himself accountable for this.

Oh, and also notice how your admitted "Hater of brown people" buddy couldn't refute a single thing that was stated by me. You know, the buddy that can't tell the difference between a tweet and a facebook post (and not even a real facebook post at that)?  Honestly, he/she actually believes there was a conspiracy.  "Trayvon knew Zimmerman ahead of time"??  lol  This is your posse.

"I Took Them to Task! Really!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Snappy Answers to Leftist Cowards about the Trayvon Martin Shooting

Ironic that Lindaman has to ape Al Jaffee from MAD magazine, since Lindaman is himself a parody (he's just not aware of it).

The longer the Trayvon Martin situation gets covered, the more Leftists (like the other blogger who talks smack about the number of people who respond to my posts when he's too much of a coward to allow people to post to his blog)

ROFL, you wouldn't even be dealing with this if you didn't repeatedly back down from a face-to-face, and still backing down eight years later.  That's hilarious.

My goal here is different from yours.  I know you are reading this, and that's all that matters to me.  If others read this, it's just a bonus.

Your goal, is to be the next Rush Limbaugh.  You want everyone to listen to you.  Don't even try to deny that.

Originally, you wanted to be a journalist and had stars in your eyes.  But you just weren't good enough, and failed.  So, like the bootstrappy Conservative you are, you gave up.  You wound up working as a mortgage lender. 

Then you went into AOL's chat room and started your right-wing lying hate rants (brought about by your redneck upbringing that irreparably fucked up your brain).  Other right-wingers in the chat room were saying "Hell yee-ah!" and cheering on your hate and lies.  Surprised by suddenly getting some attention for the first time in your life, you thought "Hey, maybe I can be a right-wing pundit!"  Since Rush Limbaugh is also fat, ugly and talentless... you thought YOU could do it too!

What you didn't understand, Lindaman, is that right-wingers in chat rooms love to circle-jerk.  They'll cheer anybody that gives them confirmation bias.  And now that AOL chat rooms have gone the way of the dodo, you can't even get decent confirmation bias back from the racists in The Podium.

But I digress.  Anyway, after the ray of hope you saw by a bunch of racists cheering you in a chatroom, you mistakenly thought you could be Rush Limbaugh. 

So you tried giving speeches, but nobody would pay to listen to you.  So you wasted your time and money with Toastmasters in the hopes you could improve your speaking ability.  But that also didn't work.  It wouldn't have mattered even if you did improve, because Rush got his job in that bootstrappy Conservative way... he had a father that owned a radio station. 

You also tried writing articles for various right-wing shill websites (which to this day still look like they were designed in 1993).  But again, nobody would pay you.  So you did it for free.  And still, nobody cared.

And they still don't care.  That, Lindaman, is why I point out that hardly anyone comments on your posts.  Because you spend hour after hour talking about how [insert the name of a person who isn't to the right of Hitler] isn't a leader.  Or how [insert name of group that isn't to the right of the SS], who actually are making a difference in this world, are "accomplishing nothing."

Because not only are you yourself accomplishing nothing, you are nothing. 

Sure, once in a blue moon, somebody will stumble onto a post, leave one comment, then never post again.  But that's hardly what your goal is, is it?  You'd be better off just ranting on Facebook, at least your family members would leave multiple comments.

And yet again, I have to post this:


You got the offer ages ago.  You still haven't complied.  Which means you are going to continue to lie your ass off, then duck when you're called out.  You want your lies hidden (which is why you don't link back, and why you want to lie in comment boxes).  I want your lying exposed, in full-on posts.  Sorry, you don't get to create the rules... because since you won't hold yourself accountable, you haven't earned that right.  I own you, not the other way around. 

So here you are.  The valiant mini-Limbaugh rants continue from you. 

Years of wasting time. 

Years of spending money. 

And in the end... you are no closer to your goal.  You've just become fatter, uglier (on the outside and the inside), more delusional, still a virgin, and a bigger asshole than ever. 

And I will always remind you of those facts, as long as you continue to trash people who don't deserve it, and continue to lie.  That is my goal.  And I achieved it the day you first acknowledged you read these posts.

start getting impatient with the length of time it's taken to arrest George Zimmerman. Yet, since I've started taking them to task, they've come up with all sorts of excuses why they don't act on what they claim is an open-and-shut case.

Let me treat you to a few of them and provide you with my responses to them.

Notice how Lindaman isn't specifying who these Leftists are.  Aside from me, of course.  So I'll just cover what Lindaman and I said.

The police should arrest Zimmerman. You mean the same police your side says screwed up the investigation?

What I said was: "...if you make a citizen's arrest in Florida, you have to turn the suspect over to... the police. Zimmerman was already in police custody, and released. So what good would a citizen's arrest do?"

Regardless, what kind of idiot logic are you using, Lindaman?  You're saying because some people didn't like what the police did, they now can't use the police?

I guess in Lindaman's world, we shouldn't criticize the police if we ever hope to call the police.  Can't even criticize these guys.

The police should have called for a grand jury. One tiny problem: the police didn't determine a crime had been committed. For a grand jury to be convened, there had to be a crime. And, no, that's not based on your opinion.

A grand jury is being convened.  Do you admit there's a crime now?

(I'm not actually saying there's a crime, but Lindaman himself is, since apparently in Lindamanland, a grand jury = crime.)

Zimmerman is in hiding. In today's society, going into hiding is a difficult proposition. And with the media firestorm your side created, it's made even more difficult because everybody and their grandmother knows what Zimmerman looks like. Besides, aren't you Leftists supposed to be so smart? Surely people of your intellect can find one guy.

Ignoring the ludicrous strawman that he created, Lindaman actually said to go to where Zimmerman lives.  If he's in hiding, he's not there. 

Jesus, Lindaman, why do you lie so much?

I'm not in Florida. They have these things called "airplanes" that will take you where you want to go for a certain amount of money. If you can't afford a flight, load up your Prius or your VW van and drive down there.

"Because people who want to defend Trayvon are faggy hippies!"

Lindaman's an expert on mobile travel, since he has to drive even if he's going just one block down the street, because he'd keel over in a wheezing mess if he tried to walk more than that.  He's a few short years away from this.

... [signifying utter silence]. I see. You make statements you refuse to back up with action.

Statements you made up.  I don't see you "taking people to task" anywhere else, so how can these things be their "response statements"? 

You're just making shit up again.  Which is funny, since a couple of posts ago, you falsely accused Sandra Fluke of doing that.  lol

I'm sure you can link to some people saying various things (it's a big world, after all), but show me where you "took them to task."

Guess which one is the most common response from the cowardly Leftists.

Says the guy that backs down.  You are quite the manly tough guy. lol

GTFO, Mr. Deluded.

NOTE: Updated with new information!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

A Response to Sandra Fluke

Transcript from Congressional Testimony of March 7, 2012

Thomas Lindaman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a few words regarding the recent controversy surrounding Sandra Fluke and her previous testimony before a special committee of Congress.

"Uh... who let this idiot in here?"
"Which idiot?"
"The morbidly obese ugly guy with the bad teeth."
"He snuck in. That's Thomas Lindaman."
"Who?"
"He's a right-wing blogger. The Bottom Line."
"Oh. Never heard of it."
"It's okay. Nobody has."

First, what in the bluest of blue Hells was she talking about? Contraception at Georgetown costing $3000 for three years? I know Georgetown's tuition is a bit on the pricey side, but damn! Upon further research,

"...'Research'?"




it turns out Ms. Fluke can get a generic version of a birth control pill that would help with cysts for $9 a month...without insurance. Granted, that's sold in a store no one's ever heard of called Target, so maybe she and her coed friends (none of them named, by the way) had to go with the name-brand stuff.

"Does Lindaman understand that there are other conditions that require the medication; like dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder?"
"Guess not."
"Does he realize that some 'generic' medications will not work properly with some people?"
"I guess he doesn't."
"Does he realize that many medications are not covered under the Target plan?"
"I suppose he doesn't."
"Is Lindaman a doctor?"
"Nope."
"Well, so much for him."

And while we're here, does anyone else find it funny the bulk of Ms. Fluke's testimony rested on anonymous sources? How do we know these women even exist? For all we know, they could be made up to suit her circumstances. I heard that from this one guy who knows this other guy who is friends with that guy who did that thing? You know, the guy who always wore pants? Yeah, him. Anyway, he says your sources were bogus.

"Is it a proven fact that there are contraception prices that are $90 a month?"
"Absolutely yes. Some even more than that, in fact."
"So does it even matter if her sources are named?"
"Nope."
"So why do right wingers want Ms. Fluke to name her friends?"
"So the right wingers can target those friends and can call them sluts, too."
"Well, god forbid she try to use discretion."
"Yeah."
"Does Ms. Fluke have a history of lying?"
"Never."
"Does Lindaman have a history of lying?"
"All the time."
"Again, why is he here?"
"It's his fantasy scenario, let's humor him."

Furthermore, the only source she did name was the Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of...drumroll please...Planned Parenthood. Wow! A pro-choice woman citing a pro-choice source in testimony about contraception! Why that's...utterly predictable. I would cite the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and their research showing a woman needing $3000 for three years of college is a bit excessive, but the irony would be lost on Ms. Fluke and her cohorts.

"Does Lindaman comprehend that the Guttmacher Institute's data comes from the National Survey of Family Growth?"
"He doesn't mention that."
"Does the public have access to this data?"
"Yes."
"Has the data been disputed by any other source?"
"Nope."
"So why is Lindaman implying something sinister?"
"Because right wingers have issues with reality and science, as usual."
"And again, since it's a fact that some women have to pay more than $90 a month for birth control, what difference does it make whether the Guttmacher Institute is credible?"
"It doesn't. Lindaman's using a common right wing tactic of trying to cloud the issue."

Ms. Fluke seems like an intelligent young woman, and she doesn't deserve to have her credibility besmirched by talk show hosts calling her unflattering names. If you just got to know her and her history,

"Her 'history'? What's he talking about?"
"Nothing. As usual."

you'll find her credibility was besmirched when she agreed to testify before a Democrats-only panel

"All right, that does it. Listen, Lindaman, you ignorant fat Iowan hillbilly fuck. You imply some kind of setup here? Let's take a look at the right wing version. I'll show you what a setup is:"



"Sandra Fluke has credibility. How in the flying fuck all, are any of these MEN credible on the reproductive rights of women? Fucking PRIESTS? Really?"

designed to capitalize on the Left's "Republicans War Against Women" line of crap.

"Well, too bad it's a fact that Republicans have a history of hating women."
"We don't even have to go back in history to prove it. This is only recently:"

Forcing women to have a raping vaginal ultrasound probing before an abortion. And if the woman doesn't like it, she can just shut her eyes while the doctor narrates what he sees.

Urging that if a woman is abused by her husband, she should not get divorced, and instead remember the good times.

Forcing women to carry dead fetuses to term (like farm animals do).

Banning the purchase of birth control for purposes of birth control.

Resisting violence against women legislation.

Opposing contraception in any form.

Defining single-parenthood as child abuse.

Banning Medicaid in an entire state for any Planned Parenthood visits.

And of course, repeatedly calling women sluts and prostitutes for talking about the pill, since apparently they always use them for sex.

"All of this is from Conservatives."
"All of this is documented fact."
"All very recently."
"And all within a very short span of time."
"Dispute any of it."
"Republicans hate women."
"Deal with it."

When they're ready to denounce abortion since the law of averages says it kills more females than males, then they'll have room to talk about anyone else.

"Female WHAT?"
"He's talking about the fact that more females are born than males."
"He's talking about zygotes now?"
"Yep."
"What's that got to do with anything?!? We're talking about actual people here: the women that need contraception."
"Not to mention that many more women die in childbirth than have ever died from a safe, legal abortion. You supersitious right-wing fucktards want women to bleed to death from illegal back-alley abortions again."
"Well, of course Lindaman doesn't care about that. Who cares about the women who die or are maimed in the process? It's obviously the Democrats who hate women."

Ms. Fluke's testimony was a bigger joke than when Stephen Colbert testified before Congress and you guys took him seriously.

"Fuck off, cornpacker. You're just jealous because Conservatives absolutely suck at humor."
"What Colbert did was not only appropriate, but extraordinarily well executed. Not only did his celebrity draw viewers, but his humor made people listen to what he was saying."
"The fact that he is a master satirist means that a large number of those who listened intuitively understood the essential wrongness of the current system."
"Hundreds of thousands of people now have an opinion on a topic they never gave any real thought to before today. How is that bad for democracy?"
"It made Republicans look bad, that's why he hates it."
"Is Lindaman a Republican?"
"He's an 'Independent'."
"Rrrrriiiiight."
"If anyone needs evidence of how effective Colbert was, all you need to do is listen to how quickly right-wingers attacked the 'mockery' of the process, without actually discussing the points he made."
"But Lindaman tries to turn this around on the left."
"Idiot."
"The right wing has tried to be humorous like Colbert, but it comes across as derivative."
"Well, that's because real comedy always has a grain of uncomfortable truth in it. Right-wingers have to write comedy that tries to hide the truth..."
"...And that is why people like you fail, Lindaman."

At least we won't see another comedic performance in Congress again. Well, at least until Al Franken goes to work in the Senate.

"Awww... bitter because Franken shot down proven Republican liars so brilliantly?"

All joking aside, Ms. Fluke did have some legitimate points about women's health. But those were obscured by the points I've raised here today.

"The only one obscuring things is yourself. Nothing that you have brought up have anything to do with the subject at hand."

Do those points undermine the credibility of those points? Absolutely not. They are worthy of consideration, regardless of the credibility of the speaker.

"Again, Fluke has credibility. Unlike yourself."

After all, the insane occasionally speak the truth. Granted, I'm still waiting for that to happen with Keith Olbermann, but hope springs eternal!

"If Olbermann ever did anything close to what Rush just pulled, the same folks calling for Rush's head would be calling for his. But Olbermann hasn't. Nice try."
"Listen, Lindaman: Rush's mean-spirited and vicious weeklong tirade involved slurs on the sexual mores of no elected or unelected public official or even public figure, but against a private citizen. His fundamental point was that women who use hormonal birth control (which is eighty percent of all women at some point in their lives) are dirty sluts who have so lost their feminine virtue that they should put on sex shows for Rush's own enjoyment."
"Rush deals out misogyny on a constant basis, but this was a special example, even by Rush's standards. And it has become very clear that most Conservatives agree with him. If they'd kept the argument on the health insurance mandate, they'd have had a point, although a bad one. But Rush, and the Republican base, just couldn't resist the urge to shout 'women are filthy whores' at the top of their lungs. Why? Because that's what they actually believe, right down to their core. Got it?"

Thank you for allowing me time to testify before you this morning. I will defer all questions to my pamphlet titled "How Do You Keep Reporters and Congressmen In Suspense?"

"See what I mean about Conservatives not being funny?"
"Well, I do find it funny that female contraception is being discussed by a male virgin that's in his forties, like Lindaman."
"Could security please escort Lindaman out, and strongly encourage him not to eat the buffet?"

Too bad that you'll never get to actually testify before Congress, Lindaman. You have to make up fantasies. Just like you crashing Wisconsin rallies. lol