I really enjoy reading the "fiction" posted on these left-wing radical blogs. They always start with a preconceived notion, then try to justify it be twisiting the facts. Much the same way science does with evolution. Ignore the facts, prove the theory! And of course all the little pied piper followers have to get lined up to follow their leader. I think the fisrt requirement for President of the United States sould be a respect for our very own symbol of freedom . . . THE AMERICAN FLAG . . . and what it means. I guess that means a vote for McCain. Obama still has not figured out which hand goes over his heart, so he stands there and votes present. I think it would be wise to pick a vice president that knows you can't watch the depression of 1929 on television. You would think one of Obama's coaches would have brought him up to date since he has been hidden from reality (in the senate) for so long and so out of touch with the world around him. But then then again, the left-wing radicals are against Palin because she is too in-touch with the "main-street" people. Keep up the great blogging folks . . . It save me a trip to the library . . . (and thus I can save on gas) . . . because Bill Clinton veto'd drilling for oil that would come in pretty handy right about now.

Clinton's no hero. The Wall St. abuses sailed right through his administration with the help of the vaunted omniscient and so-called expert , Ayn Rand-fan Greenspan touting derivatives. You can see a constancy for at least 25 years. But, truly, does your intelligence not extend to the reality of the deplorable deficiencies of McCain's judgment, the terror of his temper, and awesomely arrogant ignorance of his supremely naive and brainless vice pres. choice? That's what I call pathetic (and dangerous) partisanship, and highlightts what a country of cretins we are in great measure.

I know I shouldn't respond to such a wildly ridiculous post, but literally every sentence of the OP's rant is wrong. An abbreviated list: 1) Hitchens is nowhere near a 'left-wing radical'. He is a big supporter of the war and Bush. 2) Stop reading widely discredited internet rumors about Obama. Everyone with a brain stopped believing them months ago. 3) I don't think you want to claim a high level of intelligence is important for a VP, when your candidate is Sarah Palin. 4) My favorite: if Obama has been "hidden from reality" by being in the senate "so long" (two years), what on earth does that say about McCain??? Good one, genius. 5) Admit it: you've never set foot in a library in your life.

OP... if you really want to help out "your side's" argument, I would suggest some factual basis in your comments. Sweeping generalizations, poorly-formed rhetoric and flat-out lies are exactly why Obama's taken this election away from McCain. There's but a month left, and any damage you've done in terms of swaying independent votes is going to get harder and harder to reverse.

Awesome post!!

It's like reading MadLibs as created for concern trolls. It doesn't matter where you put "Untrue talking point #4," or that it even makes sense in the sentence, just so long as you include at least 7 of the following 15 smears. [...]

My favorite logically tortured mixed metaphor:

"Obama still has not figured out which hand goes over his heart, so he stands there and votes present."

Jon Stewart couldn't have done it better.

Much the same way science does with evolution. Ignore the facts, prove the theory!

You are an ignoramus.

Obama still has not figured out which hand goes over his heart, so he stands there and votes present.

I just figured out why McCain stood there looking like he hadn't taken a decent crap for a week and refused to look at Obama. His colostomy bag was leaking and his incontinence pad was soaked.

It goes right along with the Radical Left (TM) heliocentric solar system and round Earth theories. Karl Marx believed that the sun was at the center of the solar system, so if you do as well, you must be a Communist.

;-)

"They always start with a preconceived notion, then try to justify it be twisiting the facts. Much the same way science does with evolution.

>>That isn't at all analogous to our understanding of evolution--evolution was derived from an existing body of observations re: species diversity to explain it in a predictive and comprehensive manner. It didn't pre-date that evidence, and no 'twisting' of facts was necessary.

"Ignore the facts, prove the theory!"

>>Nonsense again--first, evolutionary theories don't ignore any facts within their scope (recall that thoeires by definition must be comprehensive). Second, by definition theories cannot be proven, only falsified.

Before you criticize evolution, it would be in your best interest to take the time to try to understand it: what the theories state or predict, the body of evidence from which they derive, what a scientific theory is for that matter....

It's weird how they never post again after their original rant. Hmmm...