Christopher Hitchens

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I just got done watching the Bill Maher season premiere and a former left-wing idealogue, Christopher Hitchens, was one of the guests. I realize that he was once a leftist, not really as left as some of you but he was far to the left nonetheless. Almost chomsky-like in a way.

Anyway, it's no secret that he was once a hard-line left-winger only to recant his ideology and become a little bit more rational in his beliefs. Now, before you call him a "traitor" or "Neo-con lackey", just remember that he is despised among the right-wing, particularly religious figures and organizations. I'm pretty sure he's not a neo-liberal economist and probably prefers some form of wealth redistribution in order to prevent communism from emerging, which is why he's probably not supported among communists.

So, here's a guy who became a far-left idealogue to a more realistic thinker, centrist indivdual: he supported Iraq, Afghanistan and supports American foreign policy and aide programs.

What do you all think of him? Do some of you here think that maybe you'll go his route and be a bit "less communist" in your thinking? Is he a "preview" as to what you all might be in a few years or maybe even longer?

I think he is a sort of "inspiration" for people like you.

After all, isn't it sort of dumb to compare Bush to "the next Hitler"? Or to refer to America as "the biggest threat to the world"?

(I believe those comments by his left-wing colleagues is what drove him in a new direction in regards to his political beliefs)

[bcbm]

A lot of New Left Trots became Republican Neo-Cons, just like lots of University "socialists" go on to become managers. Its reflective of their class background more than anything else.

I think your assertions that no leftist politics are rational is a bit asinine. :rolleyes:


After all, isn't it sort of dumb to compare Bush to "the next Hitler"?

Yes.


Or to refer to America as "the biggest threat to the world"?

No.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

What exactly is wrong with the neo-conservative platform?

It seems like you disagree with it just out of principle or you blindly accept the stereotype that seems to be attached with it?

[RevSouth]

Neo-Conservatism promotes capitalism, of course. American economic policy is damaging to human rights around the world. Neo-Conservatism is also very active in promoting the meddling of the United States into other countries and people business.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2006, 03:43 PM
I'm pretty sure he's not a neo-liberal economist and probably prefers some form of wealth redistribution in order to prevent communism from emerging, which is why he's probably not supported among communists.
sounds like a pretty good reason to oppose bourgeois reformism and support class war

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Christopher Hitchens claimed he was a socialist. That means supporting workers power and workers rights.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, some marxist academics have probably become alot less influential. This might be a reason.

If he thinks marxism is bullshit, then all it means is that he rejects marxism.

BUT, he was never a socialist or communist. You cannot go from supporting workers to opposing them just because you dont like marxism anymore.

He is and was nothing more than a fucktard academic.

Hes an ugly fat fucking rich moron too!

[Phugebrins]

"just remember that he is despised among the right-wing, particularly religious figures and organizations"
Not all enemies of the 'right' are friends of socialists.

[NantenWolf]

What exactly is wrong with the neo-conservative platform?

It seems like you disagree with it just out of principle or you blindly accept the stereotype that seems to be attached with it?

I reject Neo-Conservative ideology because it maintains that the United States should invade sovereign nations, take their resources, and achieve military and economic dominance over the entire world through capitalism, which I disagree with. That is, the entire platform is a mix of things I cannot support.

[mauvaise foi]

Christopher Hitchens is a "drink-soaked former-Trotskyite popinjay," as George Galloway called him. I'll let Alex Cockburn take over from here:

"What a truly disgusting sack of shit Hitchens is. A guy who called Sid Blumenthal one of his best friends and then tried to have him thrown into prison for perjury; a guy who waited till his friend Edward Said was on his death bed before attacking him in the Atlantic Monthly; a guy who knows perfectly well the role Israel plays in US policy but who does not scruple to flail Cindy Sheehan as a LaRouchie and anti-Semite because, maybe, she dared mention the word Israel. She lost a son? Hitchens (who should perhaps be careful on the topic of sending children off to die) says that's of scant account, and no reason why we should take her seriously. Then he brays about the horrors let loose in Iraq if the troops come home, with no mention of how the invasion he worked for has already unleashed them."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anyone who wants to see that bumptiouis fool Hitchens taken down, read this:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/01/chr...ns-dossier.html (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/01/christopher-hitchens-dossier.html)

[Publius]

The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

And you know it, or at least you should know it.

That's why it's so amusing.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So?
I doubt you could defeat Lenin in a debate

[NantenWolf]

The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I doubt it.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:24 AM

The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I doubt it.
you doubting it is a sure sign you'd be increidbly easy for him to destory. he cold probably do it even more suaced up then he was when he creamed that lunatic galloway.

[NantenWolf]

My doubt of his logical capabilities has nothing to do with how I would perform in a debate against him, in reality.

Your classification as a "Libertarian Neo-con" tells me everything I need to know about you. You support wars for oil, oppression of the poor, the bombing of civilian populations, and the worship of money.


"NO! Please don't kill me! I'm worth more alive to you than dead!"

If Che Guevara really did say that, and he almost certainly didn't, he only said it after he was shot multiple times and rendered unable to fight. He was a hero.

I'm finished with this topic. I don't want to talk about a fascist like Christopher Hitchens right now, so I'll leave it to other people who have the patience.

[theraven]

Your classification as a "Libertarian Neo-con" tells me everything I need to know about you. You support wars for oil, oppression of the poor, the bombing of civilian populations, and the worship of money.


1) i would indeed support a war for oil becus oil is vital to our eocnomy

2) i don't know waht you mean by oppression fo the poor here so i cant respond

3) civilians of enemy naisno generaly die in wars, this is true of almost all wars.

4) i whorship only god, money is just nice.



If Che Guevara really did say that, and he almost certainly didn't, he only said it after he was shot multiple times and rendered unable to fight. He was a hero.

no, he siad it whe he was surrounded by bovlian troops. he died sevlera days later.

I'm finished with this topic. I don't want to talk about a fascist like Christopher Hitchens right now, so I'll leave it to other people who have the patience.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2006, 03:57 PM
What exactly is wrong with the neo-conservative platform?

It seems like you disagree with it just out of principle or you blindly accept the stereotype that seems to be attached with it?
as a capitalist you need to realize that the neo-con idealogy doesn't align with anything that can be claled free market.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Neo-Conservatism promotes capiistalm, of course. American economic policy is damaging to human rights around the world. Neo-Conservatism is also very active in promoting the meddling of the United States into other countries and people business.

This communist said neo-cons promote capitalism, yet you maintain that they don't?

Which communist has a more valid statement on the matter?


as a capitalist you need to realize that the neo-con idealogy doesn't align with anything that can be claled free market.

And if they don't promote the free-market (which is what capitalism is), then what name do you attache to it?

You're against capitalism/free-market economy and whatever the neo-cons promote.

Are you expressing sympathy for the free-market and what true capitalists stand for?

[colonelguppy]

And if they don't promote the free-market (which is what capitalism is), then what name do you attache to it?

mixed economy corporate protectionism for lack of a better term.


You're against capitalism/free-market economy and whatever the neo-cons promote.

no. neo-cons don't advocate capitalism though.


Are you expressing sympathy for the free-market and what true capitalists stand for?

yeah

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:24 PM
The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

And you know it, or at least you should know it.

That's why it's so amusing.
yeah? hitler can out-debate an eight-year old, perhaps.

and noam chomsky can out-debate hitler.

and hitchens probably can't out-debate chomsky.

erich fromm can out-debate mussolini.

leo tolstoy can't out-debate i.a. richards.

w.h. auden can't out-debate william carlos williams.

i can't out-debate von mises.

and karl popper can't out-debate von wittgenstein.

emma goldman can out-debate george jackson.

and you can't out-debate raoul vanegeim.

i wonder if this says much, or nothing at all.

i'd go with.. nothing at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Brooklyn, if you follow the link I posted you will find there a few comrades who wipe the floor with that slug.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 31 2006, 01:39 AM--> (theraven @ Aug 31 2006, 01:39 AM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 12:24 AM

The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I doubt it.
you doubting it is a sure sign you'd be increidbly easy for him to destory. he cold probably do it even more suaced up then he was when he creamed that lunatic galloway. [/b]
I don't know where you got that idea from, on both occassions of note where Hitchens and Galloway have crossed swords recently Galloway has certainly come off on top. The 'debate' between the two turned into a rather amusing slagging match which Galloway clearly won.

"What Mr Hitchens has done is unique in natural history,
the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly into a slug,"

For those of you who with to test Raven's theory that Hitchens 'creamed' Galloway; I challenge you to listen to the debate yourself, just to note just how wrong raven is.

http://ia300837.eu.archive.org/1/items/gra...-apple_64kb.mp3 (http://ia300837.eu.archive.org/1/items/grapple-in-the-big-apple/grapple-in-the-big-apple_64kb.mp3)

It is 52.3 mb.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+Aug 31 2006, 01:05 PM--> (Invader Zim @ Aug 31 2006, 01:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 01:39 AM

[email protected] 31 2006, 12:24 AM

The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I doubt it.
you doubting it is a sure sign you'd be increidbly easy for him to destory. he cold probably do it even more suaced up then he was when he creamed that lunatic galloway.
I don't know where you got that idea from, on both occassions of note where Hitchens and Galloway have crossed swords recently Galloway has certainly come off on top. The 'debate' between the two turned into a rather amusing slagging match which Galloway clearly won.

"What Mr Hitchens has done is unique in natural history,
the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly into a slug," [/b]
to those who agree with him galloway comes up on top, for msot peole hitchens destroyed galloway

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by theraven+Aug 31 2006, 02:22 PM--> (theraven @ Aug 31 2006, 02:22 PM)
Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31 2006, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 01:39 AM

[email protected] 31 2006, 12:24 AM

The hatred of Hitchens is so amusing.

What's most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I doubt it.
you doubting it is a sure sign you'd be increidbly easy for him to destory. he cold probably do it even more suaced up then he was when he creamed that lunatic galloway.
I don't know where you got that idea from, on both occassions of note where Hitchens and Galloway have crossed swords recently Galloway has certainly come off on top. The 'debate' between the two turned into a rather amusing slagging match which Galloway clearly won.

"What Mr Hitchens has done is unique in natural history,
the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly into a slug,"
to those who agree with him galloway comes up on top, for msot peole hitchens destroyed galloway [/b]
As you can see from my edit I have added a link and peaople can hear and judge form them selves the obvious folly of your assessment of the debate.

I have listened to the entire debate, when it occured and again more recently - I suspect that you have not.

[RebelDog]

Christopher Hitchens, An example for you all to follow?


Yeah ok, I give up the struggle. As a worker I should forget that capitalism is my mortal enemy and embrace it like the 'if you can't beat em, join em' mob of which Hitchens is a more than enthusiastic member. I should now turn my attention to supporting an economic system and idealogy that is the most destructive machine ever unleashed upon the human race and my class. Maybe I could make a career out of it?

Just because people like Hitchens and Murdoch used to keep busts of Lenin on their desks doesn't mean they have 'seen the light' and finally found common sense. It means they were never any use to the movement in the first place and they place greed, murder, conquest above the idea of any notion of justice for the poor who cannot command the power of the billionaire press to voice their opposition to the brutal crimes of Hitchens capitalist godfathers.

Hitchens sides with the rich and powerful elite over the masses and he savours doing it as if he must constantly prove, like Blair, Brown and Reid how commited he now is to the welfare of the elite. I don't see anything to inspire me in Hitchens and plenty to turn my stomach and even more to pity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


Christopher Hitchens, An example for you all to follow?

What 12hrs a day drinking, in between bouts of lying in the defence of mass murderers?

I think we can laeve that to you.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 31 2006, 08:28 PM

Christopher Hitchens, An example for you all to follow?


Yeah ok, I give up the struggle. As a worker I should forget that capitalism is my mortal enemy and embrace it like the 'if you can't beat em, join em' mob of which Hitchens is a more than enthusiastic member. I should now turn my attention to supporting an economic system and idealogy that is the most destructive machine ever unleashed upon the human race and my class. Maybe I could make a career out of it?

Just because people like Hitchens and Murdoch used to keep busts of Lenin on their desks doesn't mean they have 'seen the light' and finally found common sense. It means they were never any use to the movement in the first place and they place greed, murder, conquest above the idea of any notion of justice for the poor who cannot command the power of the billionaire press to voice their opposition to the brutal crimes of Hitchens capitalist godfathers.

Hitchens sides with the rich and powerful elite over the masses and he savours doing it as if he must constantly prove, like Blair, Brown and Reid how commited he now is to the welfare of the elite. I don't see anything to inspire me in Hitchens and plenty to turn my stomach and even more to pity.
i watche dit live, but havne't botherd to listen to him since. galloway may have more creativly insulted him but in temrs of actually winnign poitns galloway was demolisehd like rachel correy

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 08:32 PM
IZ:


Christopher Hitchens, An example for you all to follow?

What 12hrs a day drinking, in between bouts of lying in the defence of mass murderers?

I think we can laeve that to you.
sounds like my life..

oh wait thats because i am him

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


sounds like my life..

oh wait thats because i am him

That accounts for your incoherence, then.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 10:12 PM
Raving:


sounds like my life..

oh wait thats because i am him

That accounts for your incoherence, then.
no i type better when drunk...

was there two debates btw? did he crush him as badly in the 2nd one? I know the first one it was like a bulldozer but...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


no i type better when drunk...

So, you are always sober, then.

[More Fire for the People]

The proper way to treat Mr. Hitchens (http://leninistmontages.blogspot.com/2006/08/proper-way-to-treat-mr-hitchens.html). Like many British ‘Trotskyist’ Hitchens is a sell-out. He has just taken it one step further by dropping the title ‘Trotskyist’ .

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:23 PM
galloway was demolisehd like rachel correy
That&#39;s awfully tasteful. <_<


Oh, and its Corrie, not Correy.

[Publius]

yeah? hitler can out-debate an eight-year old, perhaps.

and noam chomsky can out-debate hitler.

and hitchens probably can&#39;t out-debate chomsky.

erich fromm can out-debate mussolini.

leo tolstoy can&#39;t out-debate i.a. richards.

w.h. auden can&#39;t out-debate william carlos williams.

i can&#39;t out-debate von mises.

and karl popper can&#39;t out-debate von wittgenstein.

emma goldman can out-debate george jackson.

and you can&#39;t out-debate raoul vanegeim.

i wonder if this says much, or nothing at all.

i&#39;d go with.. nothing at all.

I&#39;m not saying the fact that Hitchens can out-debate you means he&#39;s obviously correct. I disagree with him a lot (on the Iraq war, actually.)

But attacking him like he&#39;s an idiot is just stupid, and would get you laughed out of any intelligent discussion of any topic relating to him.

I know a fair amount of you are angry reprobates with nothing constructive to do or add, so instead of actually, you know, thinking, you discount people like Hitchens out of hand, but if you&#39;d listen, you&#39;d see that a) he&#39;s the best &#39;pro war&#39; intellectual there is, for whatever that&#39;s worth b) though he may be an asshole, he&#39;s obviously brilliant andn c) his leftist credentials put yours to shame.

That last one is what I find most amusing. Armchair communists attacking a &#39;68er, perhaps the most prominent Trotskyist of the latest era, an impeccable socialist and anti-imperialist for most of his life.

And basically, you disagree with him one point, Iraq, and you think that he&#39;s an asshole.

But instead of actually trying to think about things from another person&#39;s perspective (impossible when you&#39;re an adherent to a faith like Marxism?), you&#39;ll see that he has, actually, noble reasons for his (incorrect) views on Iraq.

Being friends with Salman Rushdie, being an anti-theist, he feels compelled to combat religious extremism and fundamentalist Islam. What could be more leftist than fighting an oppressive, patriarchal, fundamentalist fascist-state? I would like to think you agree with him up to this point; I do.

But I just don&#39;t see how Iraq was particularly relevent to the ends he supports. I don&#39;t think he&#39;s ever made a satisfactory argument for that.

[Publius]

The proper way to treat Mr. Hitchens (http://leninistmontages.blogspot.com/2006/08/proper-way-to-treat-mr-hitchens.html). Like many British ‘Trotskyist’ Hitchens is a sell-out. He has just taken it one step further by dropping the title ‘Trotskyist’ .

And of course, Hitchens has a good point.

How does Bush&#39;s ignorance or purported messianic belief have anything to do with the leader of Iran&#39;s various actions?

Nothing.

It&#39;s a total avoidance of the actual topic. A debate on Iran itself, as a threat or whatever, would be interesting.

Attacking Bush, rightly or wrongly, does nothing to address the point actually brought up, unless you think the governments of Iran and the US are roughly equivilent.

[Publius]

I don&#39;t know where you got that idea from, on both occassions of note where Hitchens and Galloway have crossed swords recently Galloway has certainly come off on top. The &#39;debate&#39; between the two turned into a rather amusing slagging match which Galloway clearly won.

Maybe.

But Hitchens wasn&#39;t the one one the podium with Assad or Saddam.

Even granting him that &#39;win&#39;, Galloway is still a feckless, feculent reprobate.

By the way, Hitchens won as soon as he pointed out the hypocrisy in Gallow claiming solidarity with those killed Cindy Sheehan&#39;s son and then claiming solidarity with Ms. Sheehan herself.

That was a knock-out blow and is clear evidence of his hypocrisy.



"What Mr Hitchens has done is unique in natural history,
the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly into a slug,"

Yawn.



For those of you who with to test Raven&#39;s theory that Hitchens &#39;creamed&#39; Galloway; I challenge you to listen to the debate yourself, just to note just how wrong raven is.

http://ia300837.eu.archive.org/1/items/gra...-apple_64kb.mp3 (http://ia300837.eu.archive.org/1/items/grapple-in-the-big-apple/grapple-in-the-big-apple_64kb.mp3)

It is 52.3 mb.

See, what&#39;s funny is, I don&#39;t agree with Hitchens on the Iraq war. I oppose it and I always have.

But there&#39;s no way Galloway won that.

None at all.

[theraven]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Sep 1 2006, 02:10 AM--> (mauvaise foi @ Sep 1 2006, 02:10 AM)
[email protected] 31 2006, 09:23 PM
galloway was demolisehd like rachel correy
That&#39;s awfully tasteful. <_<


Oh, and its Corrie, not Correy. [/b]
who cares you got the point

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:17 AM
And basically, you disagree with him one point, Iraq, and you think that he&#39;s an asshole.

It started long before Iraq. There&#39;s a laundry list of issues on which he started to move away from the left before Iraq, from his anti-abortionism (which led him to throw his lot in with the "theists" that he hates so much) to his obsession with Bill Clinton&#39;s sex life (not that Bill Clinton isn&#39;t an imperialist mass murderer , but his sex life is no one&#39;s business), to his support for the imperialist wars in Yugoslavia (which were waged by Clinton, ironically) and Afghanistan.

Hitchens had his good moments in the past, but now he just writes whatever Murdoch tells him to write. Case in point: Hitchens used to be a fierce critic of Israel, and from what I gather, he still isn&#39;t too crazy about the Jewish state, but he hasn&#39;t written a WORD about Israel&#39;s invasion of Lebanon since it happened, preferring instead to write about Mel Gibson (not that Mel Gibson&#39;s not a religious bigot) and Valerie Plame (not that that whole "scandal" wasn&#39;t meaningless). Could this be because he doesn&#39;t want to make his neo-con buddies angry at him?

[Comrade-Z]

I don&#39;t much care for Christopher Hitchens. I mean, I appreciate his being anti-Islam, but he&#39;s gladly playing the irrational role of "Muslims are marching from the desert sands and coming to your town&#33;" fear pundit who provides justification for U.S. imperialism. Yes, Islam sucks, but at the present moment Christianity presents a faaaaaaaaar greater threat to our society than Islam.

Among pro-capitalists, I like Penn Jillette and Richard Dawkins. Even Neil Boortz says some sensible things every once in a while, mostly when he criticizes religion or points out that any libertarian who votes for the Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) nowadays is a fool.

[Invader Zim]

i watche dit live, but havne&#39;t botherd to listen to him since. galloway may have more creativly insulted him but in temrs of actually winnign poitns galloway was demolisehd like rachel correy

No... Every point Hitchens made was shown to be hypocritical and irrelevent.

[RebelDog]

Comrade-Z

Among pro-capitalists, I like Penn Jillette and Richard Dawkins.

Is Richard Dawkins a pro-capitalist? I have always wondered where his political affiliations lie. I agree with almost everything he says and he seems to have a hatred of lies and misinformation. Surely with western capitalism being the way it is he cannot support that and be for the truth? I know he comes from the aristocracy but he hardly thinks like they do. He is a man I admire greatly but I find it hard to understand how he marries his beliefs with a system that encourages superstition and is run by a superstitious elite who have scant regard for the truth and progress.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter: Dawkins was and still is against the war in Iraq, and his opinions definitely lie on the soft left, so to describe him as pro-Capitalist is probably an exaggeration.


Richard Dawkins
Dear Americans,

Don&#39;t be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn&#39;t vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don&#39;t let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden&#39;s dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons&#39; Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush&#39;s America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush&#39;s Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the "enemy" who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how "well" things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn&#39;t you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that&#39;s the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It&#39;s not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn&#39;t justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

As the bumper stickers put it, "Re-defeat Bush". But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother&#39;s friends in Florida nor his father&#39;s friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don&#39;t let us down.

· Richard Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. More letters to Clark County will be appearing in G2 over the next fortnight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/...1326066,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1326066,00.html)

[theraven]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 1 2006, 06:42 AM

i watche dit live, but havne&#39;t botherd to listen to him since. galloway may have more creativly insulted him but in temrs of actually winnign poitns galloway was demolisehd like rachel correy

No... Every point Hitchens made was shown to be hypocritical and irrelevent.
ok :rolleyes:

[JimFar]

I think that Rosa&#39;s characterization of RIchard Dawkins&#39; politics is on the money. He is a long time member of the Labour Party and has been politically since the time that he lived in the US during the late 1960s when he was involved in the antiwar movement. As I recall, he participated in Eugene McCarthy&#39;s campaign for the Democatic presidential nomination against Lyndon Johnson in 1968.

In more recent times, Dawkins has been a fierce opponent of Tony Blair concerning the Iraq war.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:17 AM
What&#39;s most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I&#39;m not saying the fact that Hitchens can out-debate you means he&#39;s obviously correct.

in light of this juxtaposition, your epidermis is showing.


But attacking him like he&#39;s an idiot is just stupid, and would get you laughed out of any intelligent discussion of any topic relating to him.

idiot? no.

apologies for imperialism? certainly.

that&#39;s, i think, where the leftists&#39; criticism is.


he&#39;s the best &#39;pro war&#39; intellectual there is, for whatever that&#39;s worth

it&#39;s worth absolutely nothing.. and that&#39;s the point.

[The Sloth]

ntxt.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:17 AM
What&#39;s most funny is, nobody can out-debate him. He could destroy you in a debate in any topic under the sun.

I&#39;m not saying the fact that Hitchens can out-debate you means he&#39;s obviously correct.

in light of this juxtaposition, your epidermis is showing.

Read them both again.

Proceed to tuck tail between legs.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 29 2006, 08:53 PM
A lot of New Left Trots became Republican Neo-Cons, just like lots of University "socialists" go on to become managers. Its reflective of their class background more than anything else.



This.

It is not a novelty that many new left trotskyists became neo-cons.

What is the point of this thread?

Are you implying all marxists are trotskyists, or what?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 1 2006, 12:12 PM--> (theraven &#064; Sep 1 2006, 12:12 PM)
Invader [email protected] 1 2006, 06:42 AM

i watche dit live, but havne&#39;t botherd to listen to him since. galloway may have more creativly insulted him but in temrs of actually winnign poitns galloway was demolisehd like rachel correy

No... Every point Hitchens made was shown to be hypocritical and irrelevent.
ok :rolleyes: [/b]
I&#39;m glad that you are catching up, sunshine.

[encephalon]

A rich white boy infatuated with leftism went home to capitalism&#39;s arms, and you call it an epiphany?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:21 AM
Read them both again.

Proceed to tuck tail between legs.
sorry, as a fully evolved human being, i am physically incapable of tucking my tail between my legs. i have as much feeling there as i do in my hexadactyl mutations.

but, maybe you belong to the primal age. how about a demonstration, then?

regardless, the epidermal juxtaposition is still there. either cut the skin, or keep it movin&#39;.

[encephalon]

Charles Bukowski
--------------------------
having the flu and with nothing else to do

I read a book about John Dos Passos and according to
the book once radical-communist
John ended up in the Hollywood Hills living off investments
and reading the
Wall Street Journal

this seems to happen all too often.

what hardly ever happens is
a man going from being a young conservative to becoming an
old wild-ass radical

however:
young conservatives always seem to become old
conservatives.
it&#39;s a kind of lifelong mental vapor-lock.

but when a young radical ends up an
old radical
the critics
and the conservatives
treat him as if he escaped from a mental
institution.

such is our politics and you can have it
all.

keep it.

sail it up your
ass.