Nice game, that.  If you don't like something someone says, it is hate speech and the speaker is a racist.  That's a great way to have a meaningful conversation.  Not.

All you guys had to do with Eastman is ask what his data was.  Ask him to prove his contention.  When he tells you it is all hearsay or stories from Bush doctors and pilots, then you can have a conversation about proving his case.  Your problem is that if the stories are out there, something is behind them.

 The best way to win a debate or discussion is never have one at all.  And leading off with terms like "verbal abuse" (second paragraph) and "racism" (fourth paragraph) goes a long way to stopping any and all discussion instantly.  But you guys know that, which is why you use them.  Can't you do any better than that?  Is that all you have?  Simply crying "shut up, she said"?

Want to make sure nothing gets solved in the Bush, keep doing what you are doing - gleefully piling on a gotcha.  Cheers -