Here is what you originally wrote: BTW, when will Duncan Hunter denounce his big spending, liberal voting record?
With this language, you are asserting that Duncan Hunter has a big spending liberal voting record. The use of the word "liberal" in association with Hunter is a pretty inflammitory charge and, given the history, difficult to substantiate. So here is what I wrote in response to your unsupported allegation.
I would hardly call advocating funding national defense adequately after eight years of "peace dividend" "liberal."
If you do, we know where you stand.
The word, "lame" appears nowhere in the post. Indeed, it accuses you of nothing unless you call Hunter's record on defense spending a problem. Nor was it insulting. Here is your insulting response:
What a big dumb strawman fallacy response. Hunter has a record of voting for big spending items above and beyond the justified DOD and Homeland Defense type spending.
The person who went to a crappy tone with personal insults was you. I have asked you three times now for support of your claims. No one has stopped you from posting it. In over 150 posts, you still haven't done it. I suggest you get to work on providing that data, with sources, or STFU.
This was your request for me to give my soure. It was your first request. You used the word "lame".
As documented, the crappy tone is yours. As I suggest if you want to have a polite conversation about Hunter and spending, either you change your tone or you STFU.
First you say 3 posts. In the next sentence you say 150 posts.
What a sleezy insinuation.
That's now three insinuations on your part all because I had the nerve to bring up Hunter and his voting record on spending.