lol give him a break this is the one time ive ever heard him make a mistake which he did not catch himself on...i might find it trying to spell wife too if i had been listening to what he had been listening to for 30 minutes
"The woman is dead. It's a four-letter word, D-E-A-D. Her biological and medical lines are flat - F-L-A-T. She is the ex-W-F-I-E of the wretched, luckless Michael Schiavo" LOL, epic...
I adore this man. He is the main defender of reason & freedom of expression in the mainstream and I will be forever grateful for all that I have gained through his works.
"I've had to be sitting in this chair for half an hour listening to you being a megaphone for frauds, and I'm giving you my response." Love it!! Poor Scarborough... just another talking head for the religious right wing that was quickly and easily dispatched by Hitchens.
Is this his whole interview?! If it is that idiot scarborouh doesnt know the first thing about putting together an entertaining show. Its like when the jack ass kicked Hitchens off his show for the christmas interview (which is only second to his falwell apperance on hannity and colmbes). He literally apologized for very entertaining segment, not to mention he cut it short too. I am not sure but i dont think he is still on the air maybe he would be if he didnt have his head up his ass.
@ModerateGuy738 It's a mistake, sure. But it's a misspeak - the man with an enormous vocabulary doesn't actually think it's spelled that way. Scarborough is actually that stupid.
And that's trite bullshit. Most atheists disagree with Hitchens on Iraq and Afghanistan. I find some arguments he's made contemptible. So false fucking priest analogy. Thanks for trying. Now stfu & gtfo.
@SketchyBack "Scarborough is actually that stupid." Right. A 47 year old man who served in the Congress of the United States can't spell a four-letter word. That makes sense.
And just because you disagree with Hitchens on politics doesn't mean you don't get your opinions on religion spoonfed to you by him. Just because a dolt disagrees with his pastor on gay marriage or something doesn't mean he doesn't get told what to believe about God every Sunday.
@ModerateGuy738 "Scarborough is actually that stupid", the "that" being what he says in this video.
You're ridiculous. First you claim thousands of people you don't know follow him "blindly", now these thousands only follow him on some issues. Your evidence being your own wishful thinking. Read about the number of pastors/believers praying for Hitchens' health right now - not all his fans are atheists either. So again, don't invent hypocrisy where there is none.
I guess you missed my analogy - just because a dolt disagrees with his pastor on gay marriage doesn't mean he doesn't get told what to believe about God every Sunday. I'm talking specifically about the cult following that goes on every Hitch video and agrees with everything he says about religion and don't bother doing any research for themselves. That is no different than someone letting a pastor tell them what to think and never researching for themselves.
@ModerateGuy738 Why do you assume I don't research anything myself? Because I don't believe what YOU think?
I can't speak for all Hitchens fans, but even when I disagree with him, I find him entertaining. I've also watched every Dave Chappelle video on YouTube. Doesn't mean I don't form my own opinions on titties/weed/racism. I'm not against listening to people.
@SketchyBack I didn't say you don't research for yourself, I said the Hitchens cultists don't. That's who I am calling hypocrites, as well. They go on every Hitchens video and regurgitate atheist talking points, which exposes the fact that they haven't actually bothered researching the subject, and have just been spoon-fed their opinions by him, in a similar way that most voters are spoon-fed their opinions by cable news and politicians.
@SketchyBack I don't care if people want to be atheist and dream about having Hitch's balls on their chins - just don't preach to religious people about how they "don't think for themselves" if you're going to let Hitch do your thinking for you. That IS hypocrisy, no matter how you try to spin it.
@ThePeacefulTraveler Actually, I don't care if religious nuts were made nuts by some preacher or became nuts by themselves. But thinking for yourself doesn't mean locking yourself in a booth and cogitating at length - listening to others' opinions is not generally considered a dishonest or unworthy pursuit.
If you check out "Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas", he states that he remembers there was one week when he barely got any sleep and they "caked him with make-up" to make him look less tired.
I think this might've been that week, as you can see by the dark circles under his eyes - a common indicator of sleeplessness. Explains the wife glitch and more from this segment. Just thought I'd let people know =P
@msm318 - "this man pretends to be an "intellectual"? hilarious He wouldn't pass 2nd grade.....what a pompous ass."
When you have written many NYT best-selling books, and when you are a regular contributor to Free Inquiry, The Nation, Slate, Vanity Fair, then you can have a couple drinks, make a "verbal typo" and we'll respect you. Until then, bow to Christopher Hitchens (insert your favorite ad hominem about yourself here, because you deserve it).
hey utubia, its so great that you personally know why Hitchens does anything, like why he hates his mother...i'm sure you can tell everyone what is in the mind of god, just like all the twisted preachers out there....gimme a break-even if there is a god(still havent seen a thimble full of evidence) he wouldn't tell idiots like pat robertson etc into the workings of his mind. stop putting words into god's mouth, and Hitchens' as well-you have no credibility, neither does your god..Hitchens does.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Christopher Hitchens' mother killed herself, and he cannot blame her, so he must blame God, because his mother told him she believed in God, and because she went to church, and he believes going to church is proof of her belief in God, and he believes God can and should make people do good and wonderful things, only !
Scarboro- i hope you read these- you got played by the religious, then owned by Hitch and you know it, you KNOW it and thats why you act like a defensive dickhead- because you are a dickhead- dickhead.
What happened here is that Scarborough tried to bully Hitchens who thought that Scarborough was saying that he faxed him some information prior to the show. What Scarborough was actually saying was that he was going to send him a transcript of the show so that they could see that Hitchens' characterisation of the show was false. Of course such a characterisation would necessarily be, to a large extent, subjective so it is unlikely that this course of action would be illuminating.
Fucking love you hitchens seriously man you kick ass... i'm so glad people like Hitchens are gaining a serious voice because the logic he uses is so steadfast... it's what we fucking need right now in this era of jesus freaks and insanity.
joe scarborough is unflinching in his service to this propaganda channel; i love his retort at the end: "I FAXED IT TO YOU ON MONDAY SO WE COULD COMPARE NOTES ON TUESDAY!"
I'd like to think I've conveyed that I don't see homosexuality as a sexual deviance, I don't think the definition of marriage should be closed and legislated towards an exclusive club of heterosexuals planning to raise a family, regardless of what traditions supported that previously, and I would view this vote as a gay equality issue.
I think I've got a fairly good idea of your views on gay rights and I now know why you'd restrict them.
Well on the BBC they have civilised political debate and its pinnacle is called Question Time.
That idea is a pretty much a mockery on US News where persuasive arguments are seen as who can shout the loudest, and the fact that the station is already tainted with party affiliates.
Hitch can be a bit overbearing but I can understand his frustration that the interviewers are frequently biased.
Yeah, there's a reason it's called homophobia - it's an ir-ra-tio-nal fear.
And I don't believe I promote any specific sexual acts here. The only reference I make on my channel is that gays deserve the same rights everyone else does because, contrary to codes of rampant tribalism, nurtured by religion, they're completely normal. Just another minority ripe for being declared strange and disgusting.
And sure, why not promote anal sex too? Go forth ye People of the Book and enjoy your gay porn.
No - that would be legalising gay marriage whilst banning it between heterosexuals. Protecting the rights of a minority doesn't mean the government is biased towards a minority orientation. The opposite's true - it's currently biased towards the majority orientation, and by being biased towards any demographic, irrespective of size is unconstitutional, in the same way that banning Islam or Himduism, whilst supporting Christianity is.
I've answered your question, so please answer mine.
Hang on, you can't make the conversation this asymmetrical - I've been generous enough to respond to your question, when I asked mine first and you still haven't addressed it : what justifies anti-gay legislation? If you don't like that phrasing tell me what you would call these laws.
It's yes or it's no. You accused me of being afraid of homosexuals. I am addressing you. If you were empowered, would you rescind the laws against incest, as they obviously could not apply to homosexual "marriages."
No, that's not answering my question at all. You're addressing some insult - I've essentially asked you to summarise why legislation should make marriage be exclusively between heterosexuals.
I'll answer the slippery slope incest question once you answer that.
If homosexual "marriage" is legislated then 1,000 of laws will be challenged and rescinded. The laws against incest obviously cannot apply to homosexuals. Male cousins may marry with zero fear of producing defective children. If you are a proponent of homosexual "marriage" then you are a proponent of not applying the incest laws to homosexual couples. Marriage is not a covenant between 2 men. You, I assume, want a society based on hedonism.
The question you asked me before was also about incest, so let me try and answer that first.
Uh, incest is a difficult one - completely divisive because there has to be a line you draw about how many times removed a person can be before it's legal. I don't know what that is in the US. I'd say that as long as we're dealing with consenting adults, I actually wouldn't ban it. But for health reasons I absolutely would ban the raising of children. Maybe even adoption as well.
You can't. You would be labeled a homophobe. A father may marry his son as there is no chance of procreation. Homosexual marriages = incestuous marriages. Civilization is based on the taming of men through marriage. One man may only take one woman. Why? To provide for the children from this union. There is no other reason for marriage {melding, marinating}. Marriage was never designed for anything but the founding of families. This "love business" is a modern contrivance.
You seem to be equating homosexuality with incest because you're defining it as 'Cannot Have Children'. The "Cannot Have Children" part is incidental, but that's not why they're gay. It's better defined by what it actually is - people who are attracted to those who are the same gender as themselves. That's why I support gays adopting.
About love. I hate the idea of marriage just being about procreation - we're not insects, we're better than that. It should primarily be a confirmation of love.
Marriage is only about procreating; not about special friendships. That's why it's called an institution & not a free-for-all. That's why it's been so thoroughly protected thru legislation till the 20th century. If you have little historical perspective then society will always appear weird to you. Look up the derivation of the word "marriage" in an unabridged dictionary. Marriage has always been very defined & till recently white men weren't permitted to marry outside their race.
Marriage means to blend. A blend produces something, that something is a child. A child can only be produced by the marriage {coition} of one man to one woman. That's what marriage means. Bigamy, polygamy, & any variation of plural marriage is taboo. Marriage is a very exclusive societal safeguard against illegitimacy, abandonment & the like. It's a legally-binding contract that carries enormous responsibilities. Marriage is the basis of the human family.
I think that's a very old, rather religious interpretation, sir. Whenever I hear about those getting married, it's simply because they love each other, and want to confirm spending the rest of their lives together.
Marriage may have been a soulless breeding contract before, but now it's about emotion. Lots of couples are in love but are happy without children. Others want family but not marriage. Some want both. The state should not favour any but banning gay marriage does.
Civil marriages conducted by magistrates have ALWAYS been between one man & one woman. What you're calling for is not marriage in the civil, religious and historical context. It defies the very definition of the word "marriage." An intimate friendship amongst 2 men does not meet the criteria for marriage, therefor it's not marriage. We also have laws forbidding cannibalism amongst consenting adults.
Okay so now we've put homosexuality on the same spectrum as incest and then cannibalism. Why don't you add interracial relations to that spectrum?
There was a time when a black man was more closely classified as a 'man' in the true human sense but an animal. The tradition, and the definition of what it meant to be black in a white country changed for a reason - it was unjustly oppressing a minority.
Orientation, like skin colour, is not grounds for deciding the legitimacy of relationships.
Yes, surely, but the races do meld to form children and it still takes a man {regardless of stock} to impregnate a woman {regardless of stock}. Despite the legislative road blocks, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can beget a child, therefor a marriage has taken place. Marriage means to blend. An act of sodomy or fellation can not beget a child. The institution of marriage is between one man and one woman who are unrelated by a blood-bond.
No one is saying that can't have your opinion of marriage - that's fine. Gays aren't going to cause the annulment of your marriage. But obviously a whole bunch of other people have a different view on what marriage means to them and they have to be accounted for too. Gay marriages do not endanger yours and gay relationships do not harm other people.
This debate will never be more sophisticated than the playground politics of, "Eugh, that's gross" - nothing to do with marriage or kids.
The general mind-set, advanced by the media since the latter half of the 20th century, is that nothing of the past has merit. Marriage is a social contract whose purpose is narrowly defined. Homosexual relationships, because they do not propagate the species, have been viewed {since the beginning of civilization} as anomalies. The laws forbidding the cohabitation of homosexuals remain ignored on the books. Society will never fully accept these intimate friendships between men as marriages.
Saying "society will never fully accept these intimate marriages" is retarded. If you're talking about individual societies, then of course there have been societies which did accept same-sex marriages (e.g. ancient India, some societies of ancient Asia minior, some Red Indian tribes, etc). If you're talking about all societies collectively, then of course it will never "fully" be accepted, just as interracial marriage will never fully be accepted.
"society will never fully accept these intimate marriages" is such a ridiculous comment in this day and age. Maybe homophobic religious society wnt accept it but the REST of the world will. They should bring back burning at the stake and fundamentalists can then be properly looked after. Idiots, every last one of them.
But what I find most interesting is this contradiction.
On the one hand you say I should look up the traditional definition of marriage as that's the one you want to re-enforce. But on the other, you don't like the part about it being restricted to same-race couples because then YOU'RE the outcast. There was a time when your relationship was deemed dangerous for raising children.
That change protected minorities, and legalising gay marriage will be a similar mark of progress for a minority.
There was indeed a time when marrying outside one's caste was punishable by death. I don't ascribe to eugenics. Homosexual friendships cannot produce children. Society may as well chuck the very idea of marriage if it serves no real cause. Would Elton John be tried for bigamy, hypothetically-speaking, if he'd "married" his boyfriend before divorcing his wife? Civilization involves guidelines that have to be rooted in common sense.
Look, marriage should mean whatever the participants want it to mean. They're grown up enough to determine how serious they are themselves. That's why the law doesn't interfere with morons marrying at Vegas on a whim - it's not their business.
And you may not ascribe to eugenics but you will entertain homophobia. You're happy the fence came down for you, but you want it back up now, because you're no longer the target of oppression. You can't have your bigotry a la carte, mate.
I married a woman. No fence came down for me. Homophobia means to fear homosexuals/ homosexuality. I harbor no such fear. Members of disparate races can, and frequently do, produce children therefor they may marry, nature permits it. Men can not produce families without women. Women cannot conceive children without men. That's the basis and the very definition of the word marriage. Your feelings of righteous indignation can't change that. You are mistaken.
And what would those guidelines be? Polygamy, perhaps, which after all has been the most common form of marriage in human history? Polyandry, which has also occured in some societies? Incestuous marriage perhaps, which was common in Egyptian royality? You are a blithering idiot who has no idea what you're talking about. Each society has created it's own definition of marriage to suit it's needs, just like we changed our definition to include interracial marriage after blacks were freed.
Just to go over this again - homosexuality is NOT incest.
You could still charge someone who happened to be homosexual if they were having a relationship with someone they were related to. The charge is about blood relatives - not orientation. Straight people do not have more protection from incest laws than gays, because the orientation is irrelevant to the definition and crime of incest.
Mother/son incest is just as illegal as mother/daughter incest.
"If homosexual "marriage" is legislated then 1,000 of laws will be challenged and rescinded."
It has already been legislated in multiple countries - countries with better living standards than the US, incidentally - and those countries have not fallen apart because of it, and their legistatory system is working fine.
Somehow, an individual's use of their private parts doesn't quite compare with a weak dollar, a wrecked economic system, political corruption, involvement in multiple wars, escalating energy costs...amazing though how people ignore all those issues and worry about whether some random dude wants to do another random dude.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Im a christian and I LOVE HITCHENS!! haha he is so funny!! when he gets mad, he's good, he would destroy me in a battle of words!!! haha He just needs jesus!! He would make a great preacher.
hitchens is naive because he preaches personal preferance as reality .he is a closet theist who lies in contempt for the truth he knows implicates him as a satanic failed rebel.
He goes to shows like that because they're an effective channel to communicate to the masses. That's why you see great intellectuals like Hitchens, Dawkins, S. Harris, and others, on shows hosted by the journalists wannabe. Refer O'Rilley as an example.
I'm sure though that people are gradually raising their consciousness and people like Joe Scarborough are even helping by showing them/us their ridicule mentalities and attitudes.
Joe Scarborough is dangerous in as much as he has perfected quite his act of appearing to be an ordinary blue collar mindset.
The fact that he now occupies Don Imus' old slot on MSNBC shows the lead progression now being administered by cable news to move away from questioning Bush Neo Con policy. Scarboroughs current on air sidekick is the daughter of Zbignew Brezinski, a NWO jr architect and supporter.
I looked up another Scarborough video on the net where he's talking about Schiavo, and it's embarrasing how Scarborough goes after a neurologist that was on the show, asking if they did a catscan.. anyway, google it.. Hitchens was right to go after Scarborough on this one, he was being an idiot before Hitch came on.
Scarborough called one of the neurologists who examined Schiavo and found she was brain dead a "fraud" and suggested he'd been bought off by the lawyers for Michael Schiavo.. guess we know who turned on right on that little dispute.
Joe Scarborough thinks he's interesting, yet he always has some jackass on from Tiger Beat to discuss Lyndsey Lohan or Paris. He hates Hitchens because Hitchens bitch ass tells him how pathetic his show is...rs
For those who call Hitchens a drunk--I shudder to imagine how much ass he could kick if he were sober! He's already off-the-charts intelligent and well-spoken. Drunk? Maybe. Genius? No f-ing doubt.
Then pray tell--why do you waste your time watching videos of a man whom you call a drunk and who, according to you, speaks lies? Sounds like you're wasting a lot of time on someone in whom you don't believe (which is something I refuse to do when it comes to god).
Guess what people? Some keep remarking that he is drunk. If he is drunk and still makes others look like complete retards that makes him even more of a bad ass.
joe - another tool on tv who get owned by CH
Sconezeta 1 week ago
I would like to know if these people were really being what Christopher said...
PaulGilbertIsGod2 3 months ago
Christopher being boss as always.
lpslostagain 5 months ago
lol give him a break this is the one time ive ever heard him make a mistake which he did not catch himself on...i might find it trying to spell wife too if i had been listening to what he had been listening to for 30 minutes
NotAG4yName 5 months ago
pat buchanan is a vile, stupid little man.
braydenbeautiful 5 months ago
What is a WFIE? Is it some sort of undercover organization?
bucketheadkfc 6 months ago
I love hitchens, but you'd think with his intellect he would be able to spell wife
mrcheese69 7 months ago
Epic pwnage by Hitchens once again. That Scarborough guy is such an obnoxious, self-righteous dickhead.
MrDouglasQuaid 7 months ago
Scarborough is such a smug prick.
FloridaLiberal 7 months ago
Long live the Hitch!
Nickevo 8 months ago
I think he was quitting smoking during this time.
bfoaliali 8 months ago
He's drunk in this interview, and he's still brilliant.
CambridgeHeights 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Scarborough's slow incessant speech takes up all the air time with very little substance delivered in the end.. Mika do you agree? Where's Mika?
IbsaUtube 10 months ago
Comment removed
IbsaUtube 10 months ago
"The woman is dead. It's a four-letter word, D-E-A-D. Her biological and medical lines are flat - F-L-A-T. She is the ex-W-F-I-E of the wretched, luckless Michael Schiavo" LOL, epic...
I adore this man. He is the main defender of reason & freedom of expression in the mainstream and I will be forever grateful for all that I have gained through his works.
BIJMOZ 11 months ago 3
I'd like to have heard that snivelling fascist Pat Buchannan come back from that one.
strepsil08 11 months ago
"I've had to be sitting in this chair for half an hour listening to you being a megaphone for frauds, and I'm giving you my response." Love it!! Poor Scarborough... just another talking head for the religious right wing that was quickly and easily dispatched by Hitchens.
b286guy 11 months ago
Is this his whole interview?! If it is that idiot scarborouh doesnt know the first thing about putting together an entertaining show. Its like when the jack ass kicked Hitchens off his show for the christmas interview (which is only second to his falwell apperance on hannity and colmbes). He literally apologized for very entertaining segment, not to mention he cut it short too. I am not sure but i dont think he is still on the air maybe he would be if he didnt have his head up his ass.
burdengtr 1 year ago
I never thought I would see someone hosting a TV show who is more of a moron than Bill O'Rielly, well this dude possibly is
jajmjbylso 1 year ago 5
We should definitely clone Hitchens.
indiangoku 1 year ago 2
Hitchens is right: These morons should ask and LISTEN!
MsGnorts 1 year ago
Comment removed
l3lip 1 year ago
hitch is fucking king
hchukuka 1 year ago
allowed people to say.. '' did i say that? '' MORON.
TomValedro 1 year ago
has anyone noticed he spells 'exwfie' not exwife?
AppleMaster1 1 year ago
If Joe Scarborough had spelled wife "wfie", everyone here would be ripping into him and calling him a dumbass.
Hitchens does it, and it's "just one mistake".
You idiots follow Hitchens as blindly as religious people follow clergymen. Fucking hypocrites.
ModerateGuy738 1 year ago
@ModerateGuy738 It's a mistake, sure. But it's a misspeak - the man with an enormous vocabulary doesn't actually think it's spelled that way. Scarborough is actually that stupid.
And that's trite bullshit. Most atheists disagree with Hitchens on Iraq and Afghanistan. I find some arguments he's made contemptible. So false fucking priest analogy. Thanks for trying. Now stfu & gtfo.
SketchyBack 1 year ago
@SketchyBack "Scarborough is actually that stupid." Right. A 47 year old man who served in the Congress of the United States can't spell a four-letter word. That makes sense.
And just because you disagree with Hitchens on politics doesn't mean you don't get your opinions on religion spoonfed to you by him. Just because a dolt disagrees with his pastor on gay marriage or something doesn't mean he doesn't get told what to believe about God every Sunday.
ModerateGuy738 1 year ago
@ModerateGuy738 "Scarborough is actually that stupid", the "that" being what he says in this video.
You're ridiculous. First you claim thousands of people you don't know follow him "blindly", now these thousands only follow him on some issues. Your evidence being your own wishful thinking. Read about the number of pastors/believers praying for Hitchens' health right now - not all his fans are atheists either. So again, don't invent hypocrisy where there is none.
SketchyBack 1 year ago
@SketchyBack *Whoosh*
I guess you missed my analogy - just because a dolt disagrees with his pastor on gay marriage doesn't mean he doesn't get told what to believe about God every Sunday. I'm talking specifically about the cult following that goes on every Hitch video and agrees with everything he says about religion and don't bother doing any research for themselves. That is no different than someone letting a pastor tell them what to think and never researching for themselves.
ModerateGuy738 1 year ago
@ModerateGuy738 Why do you assume I don't research anything myself? Because I don't believe what YOU think?
I can't speak for all Hitchens fans, but even when I disagree with him, I find him entertaining. I've also watched every Dave Chappelle video on YouTube. Doesn't mean I don't form my own opinions on titties/weed/racism. I'm not against listening to people.
SketchyBack 1 year ago
@SketchyBack I didn't say you don't research for yourself, I said the Hitchens cultists don't. That's who I am calling hypocrites, as well. They go on every Hitchens video and regurgitate atheist talking points, which exposes the fact that they haven't actually bothered researching the subject, and have just been spoon-fed their opinions by him, in a similar way that most voters are spoon-fed their opinions by cable news and politicians.
ModerateGuy738 1 year ago
@SketchyBack I don't care if people want to be atheist and dream about having Hitch's balls on their chins - just don't preach to religious people about how they "don't think for themselves" if you're going to let Hitch do your thinking for you. That IS hypocrisy, no matter how you try to spin it.
ThePeacefulTraveler 1 year ago
@ThePeacefulTraveler Actually, I don't care if religious nuts were made nuts by some preacher or became nuts by themselves. But thinking for yourself doesn't mean locking yourself in a booth and cogitating at length - listening to others' opinions is not generally considered a dishonest or unworthy pursuit.
SketchyBack 1 year ago
lol scarborough is an ass.
TomValedro 1 year ago
Christopher HItchens 1, Joe Scarborough 0.
jamesharvey101 1 year ago
Comment removed
jamesharvey101 1 year ago
The is my favorite Hitchens video. He's a beast on here! lol
MatthewHB87 1 year ago
@MatthewHB87 Joe must be so sick and tired of getting his ass whipped on national TV by Hitchens
LOL!
snipet19 1 year ago
Scarborough i such a pillow-biting tool for FOX News.
An uninformed fool with no real opinions of his own and no real thoughts.
He's got the journalistic integrity of the Star.
PR13STG0RD0 1 year ago
"no... YOU ought to be ashamed!"
great comeback. XD
spokmage 1 year ago 3
I have a four letter word for you shti.
rudenoodle 1 year ago
In addition, I think Joe threatened to fax the transcript 'cause Hitch was toasted
mraindog81 1 year ago
Hitch was so bombed when this was taped! He sounds like he's got a mouth full of cotton! And still the smartest guy in the room! Hitch is the man!
mraindog81 1 year ago 4
lol. he likes his scotch. i dont blame him... its quite tasty
hardleecure 1 year ago
Chris put Joe on his lap and gave him a good tap on the buttocks. lol....
flavho 2 years ago
Notice how Scarborough's eyes go really squinty as he's knocked out by Hitchins....
MrDragon1968 2 years ago 5
Oratorical knock-out by Hitchens.
Fuchizaa 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
W F I E
hmmmmm......this man pretends to be an "intellectual"? hilarious
He wouldn't pass 2nd grade.....what a pompous ass.
msm318 2 years ago
The "WFIE" glitch has been mentioned a hundred times on here. Have you ever had all your words on live TV examined in such a way?
You don't have to like Hitchens, but to say he's not an intellectual is facile. Do you not know anything about the man?
herrkaliyuga 2 years ago 9
@herrkaliyuga
If you check out "Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas", he states that he remembers there was one week when he barely got any sleep and they "caked him with make-up" to make him look less tired.
I think this might've been that week, as you can see by the dark circles under his eyes - a common indicator of sleeplessness. Explains the wife glitch and more from this segment. Just thought I'd let people know =P
l3lip 1 year ago
@l3lip meh. i don't see why an explanation is needed. occasionally everyone misspeaks.
bethnor 1 year ago
@msm318 explain.
TomValedro 1 year ago
@msm318 - "this man pretends to be an "intellectual"? hilarious He wouldn't pass 2nd grade.....what a pompous ass."
When you have written many NYT best-selling books, and when you are a regular contributor to Free Inquiry, The Nation, Slate, Vanity Fair, then you can have a couple drinks, make a "verbal typo" and we'll respect you. Until then, bow to Christopher Hitchens (insert your favorite ad hominem about yourself here, because you deserve it).
gekritzl 9 months ago 4
lol, I don't think Hitchens likes Scarborough very much. Just watched another clip where he tells him off with a hearty "Merry Xmas".
livardo 2 years ago
so awesome!
Slugg329 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the most intelligent man in the world misspells a four letter word, there is hope for us all!
tillbot8 2 years ago
its called a fuck up, everybody has one
fullMetaLxMantis 2 years ago
lol he spelled "wife" wrong
hitchens is awesome! :)
girlwithanattitude 2 years ago 2
It's called being a drunk.
joshsirjoshules 2 years ago
It's funny how in recent videos Scarborough and Hitch are rather amiable toward each other now, considering how belligerent they used to be.
Mike3303 2 years ago
Scarborough is an idiot. I wish I could see the whole of this interview.
MrDragon1968 2 years ago 6
this goat is no match for Christopher Hitchens typical Brit v typical christian U.S
Greig1424 2 years ago 15
Scarborouh still has scars from this.
He should have a tattoo on his ass saying, "Property of Christopher Hitchens".
bodeezy 2 years ago 95
Scarborough is a douche!
fukyouhadjis 2 years ago 5
Hahahaha, well said my friend.
ptm5150 2 years ago 3
hey utubia, its so great that you personally know why Hitchens does anything, like why he hates his mother...i'm sure you can tell everyone what is in the mind of god, just like all the twisted preachers out there....gimme a break-even if there is a god(still havent seen a thimble full of evidence) he wouldn't tell idiots like pat robertson etc into the workings of his mind. stop putting words into god's mouth, and Hitchens' as well-you have no credibility, neither does your god..Hitchens does.
69freeman 2 years ago 3
thank the invisible lord for hitchens....he beautifully exposes the frauds and hucksters like buchanan an pat robertson...scarborough is laughable!!
69freeman 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Christopher Hitchens' mother killed herself, and he cannot blame her, so he must blame God, because his mother told him she believed in God, and because she went to church, and he believes going to church is proof of her belief in God, and he believes God can and should make people do good and wonderful things, only !
utubia1958 2 years ago
Scarboro- i hope you read these- you got played by the religious, then owned by Hitch and you know it, you KNOW it and thats why you act like a defensive dickhead- because you are a dickhead- dickhead.
HaderchKwisatz 2 years ago 7
he spelled wife wrong ;P
rudenoodle 2 years ago
scarborough is a noob.
TomValedro 2 years ago 4
What happened here is that Scarborough tried to bully Hitchens who thought that Scarborough was saying that he faxed him some information prior to the show. What Scarborough was actually saying was that he was going to send him a transcript of the show so that they could see that Hitchens' characterisation of the show was false. Of course such a characterisation would necessarily be, to a large extent, subjective so it is unlikely that this course of action would be illuminating.
badger5079 2 years ago
i'd rather listen to monkeys in a zoo than to stupid christians
illbetilbake 2 years ago 12
Observation of monkeys expands our knowledge of primate behaviour.
Observation of christians lead to depression.
accountbypass1 2 years ago 11
Is he admitting that this live "news" show has been scripted before it even begins? Or did he mean that he would send the transcript after the show?
melissainnovascotia 2 years ago
Fucking love you hitchens seriously man you kick ass... i'm so glad people like Hitchens are gaining a serious voice because the logic he uses is so steadfast... it's what we fucking need right now in this era of jesus freaks and insanity.
TheBiddleMan 2 years ago 60
joe scarborough is unflinching in his service to this propaganda channel; i love his retort at the end: "I FAXED IT TO YOU ON MONDAY SO WE COULD COMPARE NOTES ON TUESDAY!"
Full sound of sound and force;
Signifying nothing.
senateb 2 years ago
He said "I will fax it to you..."
Scarborough is still being a dick, though.
badger5079 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why is hitchens being such an asshole? take it easy.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago
Comment removed
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago
what's xwfie?
lucash21158 3 years ago
Dang, Hitchens spelt 'wife' wrong. S'all that info trying to get from his brain to his mouth.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
He meant to say Ex W-I-F-E
badger5079 2 years ago 2
Wow. did someone forget to fill in the blue screen behind behind Christopher?
theripper715 2 years ago
Its fox. If they'd filled in th blue screen it would have had pitcures of hell and castro.
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
It's MSNBC, not fox.
TheBlasphemer2875 2 years ago
Whoops. So it is. My mistake. Thanks.
blahblahhuh1 2 years ago
Lol. Easy mistake to make! I'd made the same assumption. ;-)
I guess MSNBC need their bible-thumper audience too.
newroan 1 year ago
Hitchens don't put up with no bullshit.
lucash21158 3 years ago 10
did he spell wife wrong..
wackid89 3 years ago 2
scarborough is an ass's behind.
Rainyfield 3 years ago 6
scarborough is a fraud
CelticXuptheRA 3 years ago 8
Scarborough IS a deluded jesus freak. Hitchens is a badass drunk who won't put up with it.
Nykytyne2 3 years ago 20
Christopher Hitchens O.W.N.S! Sorry for being so cheesy, but I love him!
ThePissedOffAtheist 3 years ago 8
W-F-I-E. Hitchens can't spell. But he was right...
tattypatty 3 years ago 3
I'm gonna leave it there, Pro Commenter.
I'd like to think I've conveyed that I don't see homosexuality as a sexual deviance, I don't think the definition of marriage should be closed and legislated towards an exclusive club of heterosexuals planning to raise a family, regardless of what traditions supported that previously, and I would view this vote as a gay equality issue.
I think I've got a fairly good idea of your views on gay rights and I now know why you'd restrict them.
Happy trails.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
A wise man learns from his mistakes; a wiser man learns from the mistakes of others.
procommenter 3 years ago
"He supports Big Brother"
Oh well that book entitled 'Why Orwell Matters' was a mistake then. Putz.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
"Putz" is Yiddish for penis. Why don't you look for a man at a gay Internet site?
procommenter 3 years ago
I love Hitchens, but I have to admit this video serves as a testament to his lack of prudence about going on television when he is hungover.
meiitbe 3 years ago
W.F.I.E
macarion 3 years ago
hahahahaha! you've no idea what you're talking about.
kpgerhardt 3 years ago 3
Scarborough always argues with him but always lets him back on and they go at it like cat and dog again. Thats why I love US news channels.
peaco1000 3 years ago 6
LOL
Janetvdl 3 years ago
I guess you only have the BBC in your country? You don't have political debate on television?
Srhandel 3 years ago
Well on the BBC they have civilised political debate and its pinnacle is called Question Time.
That idea is a pretty much a mockery on US News where persuasive arguments are seen as who can shout the loudest, and the fact that the station is already tainted with party affiliates.
Hitch can be a bit overbearing but I can understand his frustration that the interviewers are frequently biased.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Why do you promote sodomy on You-Tube? What's in it for you? Does your family approve?
procommenter 3 years ago
Yeah, there's a reason it's called homophobia - it's an ir-ra-tio-nal fear.
And I don't believe I promote any specific sexual acts here. The only reference I make on my channel is that gays deserve the same rights everyone else does because, contrary to codes of rampant tribalism, nurtured by religion, they're completely normal. Just another minority ripe for being declared strange and disgusting.
And sure, why not promote anal sex too? Go forth ye People of the Book and enjoy your gay porn.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Don't be frightened, someone's bound to give you a liberal dose of whatever your heart bleeds for.
procommenter 3 years ago
Well why don't you pose a genuine argument of your own, instead of some crude attempt to dress up the 'bleeding heart liberal' cliché?
Go on, put your money where your mouth is and explain to me what's so great about anti-gay principles? Take the floor. Convince me.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
A more apropos question is: Why must civil government be a proponent of homosexualism?
procommenter 3 years ago
No - that would be legalising gay marriage whilst banning it between heterosexuals. Protecting the rights of a minority doesn't mean the government is biased towards a minority orientation. The opposite's true - it's currently biased towards the majority orientation, and by being biased towards any demographic, irrespective of size is unconstitutional, in the same way that banning Islam or Himduism, whilst supporting Christianity is.
I've answered your question, so please answer mine.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Are you for the enforcement of the laws against incest?
procommenter 3 years ago
Hang on, you can't make the conversation this asymmetrical - I've been generous enough to respond to your question, when I asked mine first and you still haven't addressed it : what justifies anti-gay legislation? If you don't like that phrasing tell me what you would call these laws.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
It's yes or it's no. You accused me of being afraid of homosexuals. I am addressing you. If you were empowered, would you rescind the laws against incest, as they obviously could not apply to homosexual "marriages."
procommenter 3 years ago
No, that's not answering my question at all. You're addressing some insult - I've essentially asked you to summarise why legislation should make marriage be exclusively between heterosexuals.
I'll answer the slippery slope incest question once you answer that.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
If homosexual "marriage" is legislated then 1,000 of laws will be challenged and rescinded. The laws against incest obviously cannot apply to homosexuals. Male cousins may marry with zero fear of producing defective children. If you are a proponent of homosexual "marriage" then you are a proponent of not applying the incest laws to homosexual couples. Marriage is not a covenant between 2 men. You, I assume, want a society based on hedonism.
procommenter 3 years ago
Thanks for responding.
The question you asked me before was also about incest, so let me try and answer that first.
Uh, incest is a difficult one - completely divisive because there has to be a line you draw about how many times removed a person can be before it's legal. I don't know what that is in the US. I'd say that as long as we're dealing with consenting adults, I actually wouldn't ban it. But for health reasons I absolutely would ban the raising of children. Maybe even adoption as well.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
You can't. You would be labeled a homophobe. A father may marry his son as there is no chance of procreation. Homosexual marriages = incestuous marriages. Civilization is based on the taming of men through marriage. One man may only take one woman. Why? To provide for the children from this union. There is no other reason for marriage {melding, marinating}. Marriage was never designed for anything but the founding of families. This "love business" is a modern contrivance.
procommenter 3 years ago
You seem to be equating homosexuality with incest because you're defining it as 'Cannot Have Children'. The "Cannot Have Children" part is incidental, but that's not why they're gay. It's better defined by what it actually is - people who are attracted to those who are the same gender as themselves. That's why I support gays adopting.
About love. I hate the idea of marriage just being about procreation - we're not insects, we're better than that. It should primarily be a confirmation of love.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Marriage is only about procreating; not about special friendships. That's why it's called an institution & not a free-for-all. That's why it's been so thoroughly protected thru legislation till the 20th century. If you have little historical perspective then society will always appear weird to you. Look up the derivation of the word "marriage" in an unabridged dictionary. Marriage has always been very defined & till recently white men weren't permitted to marry outside their race.
procommenter 3 years ago
You seem to be of the opinion that traditions are inherently good and things should just stay as they are.
"till recently white men weren't permitted to marry outside their race"
Yes! We changed that because it was racist. It's good we blocked that form of prejudice and it's a pity we didn't change the law sooner.
Are you actually saying if you had your way you'd also keep interracial relationships illegal? Are you a liberal pretending to be prejudiced?
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
My wife and I are not of the same race.
Marriage means to blend. A blend produces something, that something is a child. A child can only be produced by the marriage {coition} of one man to one woman. That's what marriage means. Bigamy, polygamy, & any variation of plural marriage is taboo. Marriage is a very exclusive societal safeguard against illegitimacy, abandonment & the like. It's a legally-binding contract that carries enormous responsibilities. Marriage is the basis of the human family.
procommenter 3 years ago
I think that's a very old, rather religious interpretation, sir. Whenever I hear about those getting married, it's simply because they love each other, and want to confirm spending the rest of their lives together.
Marriage may have been a soulless breeding contract before, but now it's about emotion. Lots of couples are in love but are happy without children. Others want family but not marriage. Some want both. The state should not favour any but banning gay marriage does.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Civil marriages conducted by magistrates have ALWAYS been between one man & one woman. What you're calling for is not marriage in the civil, religious and historical context. It defies the very definition of the word "marriage." An intimate friendship amongst 2 men does not meet the criteria for marriage, therefor it's not marriage. We also have laws forbidding cannibalism amongst consenting adults.
procommenter 3 years ago
Okay so now we've put homosexuality on the same spectrum as incest and then cannibalism. Why don't you add interracial relations to that spectrum?
There was a time when a black man was more closely classified as a 'man' in the true human sense but an animal. The tradition, and the definition of what it meant to be black in a white country changed for a reason - it was unjustly oppressing a minority.
Orientation, like skin colour, is not grounds for deciding the legitimacy of relationships.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Yes, surely, but the races do meld to form children and it still takes a man {regardless of stock} to impregnate a woman {regardless of stock}. Despite the legislative road blocks, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can beget a child, therefor a marriage has taken place. Marriage means to blend. An act of sodomy or fellation can not beget a child. The institution of marriage is between one man and one woman who are unrelated by a blood-bond.
procommenter 3 years ago
No one is saying that can't have your opinion of marriage - that's fine. Gays aren't going to cause the annulment of your marriage. But obviously a whole bunch of other people have a different view on what marriage means to them and they have to be accounted for too. Gay marriages do not endanger yours and gay relationships do not harm other people.
This debate will never be more sophisticated than the playground politics of, "Eugh, that's gross" - nothing to do with marriage or kids.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
The general mind-set, advanced by the media since the latter half of the 20th century, is that nothing of the past has merit. Marriage is a social contract whose purpose is narrowly defined. Homosexual relationships, because they do not propagate the species, have been viewed {since the beginning of civilization} as anomalies. The laws forbidding the cohabitation of homosexuals remain ignored on the books. Society will never fully accept these intimate friendships between men as marriages.
procommenter 3 years ago
Saying "society will never fully accept these intimate marriages" is retarded. If you're talking about individual societies, then of course there have been societies which did accept same-sex marriages (e.g. ancient India, some societies of ancient Asia minior, some Red Indian tribes, etc). If you're talking about all societies collectively, then of course it will never "fully" be accepted, just as interracial marriage will never fully be accepted.
tvstvs 3 years ago
"society will never fully accept these intimate marriages" is such a ridiculous comment in this day and age. Maybe homophobic religious society wnt accept it but the REST of the world will. They should bring back burning at the stake and fundamentalists can then be properly looked after. Idiots, every last one of them.
quadfunk 3 years ago 2
Very well then, let's make all heterosexual couples take a fertility test and those that do not pass shall be prohibited from marriage.
tvstvs 3 years ago 3
But what I find most interesting is this contradiction.
On the one hand you say I should look up the traditional definition of marriage as that's the one you want to re-enforce. But on the other, you don't like the part about it being restricted to same-race couples because then YOU'RE the outcast. There was a time when your relationship was deemed dangerous for raising children.
That change protected minorities, and legalising gay marriage will be a similar mark of progress for a minority.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
There was indeed a time when marrying outside one's caste was punishable by death. I don't ascribe to eugenics. Homosexual friendships cannot produce children. Society may as well chuck the very idea of marriage if it serves no real cause. Would Elton John be tried for bigamy, hypothetically-speaking, if he'd "married" his boyfriend before divorcing his wife? Civilization involves guidelines that have to be rooted in common sense.
procommenter 3 years ago
Look, marriage should mean whatever the participants want it to mean. They're grown up enough to determine how serious they are themselves. That's why the law doesn't interfere with morons marrying at Vegas on a whim - it's not their business.
And you may not ascribe to eugenics but you will entertain homophobia. You're happy the fence came down for you, but you want it back up now, because you're no longer the target of oppression. You can't have your bigotry a la carte, mate.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
I married a woman. No fence came down for me. Homophobia means to fear homosexuals/ homosexuality. I harbor no such fear. Members of disparate races can, and frequently do, produce children therefor they may marry, nature permits it. Men can not produce families without women. Women cannot conceive children without men. That's the basis and the very definition of the word marriage. Your feelings of righteous indignation can't change that. You are mistaken.
procommenter 3 years ago
And what would those guidelines be? Polygamy, perhaps, which after all has been the most common form of marriage in human history? Polyandry, which has also occured in some societies? Incestuous marriage perhaps, which was common in Egyptian royality? You are a blithering idiot who has no idea what you're talking about. Each society has created it's own definition of marriage to suit it's needs, just like we changed our definition to include interracial marriage after blacks were freed.
tvstvs 3 years ago 5
Just to go over this again - homosexuality is NOT incest.
You could still charge someone who happened to be homosexual if they were having a relationship with someone they were related to. The charge is about blood relatives - not orientation. Straight people do not have more protection from incest laws than gays, because the orientation is irrelevant to the definition and crime of incest.
Mother/son incest is just as illegal as mother/daughter incest.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
"If homosexual "marriage" is legislated then 1,000 of laws will be challenged and rescinded."
It has already been legislated in multiple countries - countries with better living standards than the US, incidentally - and those countries have not fallen apart because of it, and their legistatory system is working fine.
tvstvs 3 years ago 7
Somehow, an individual's use of their private parts doesn't quite compare with a weak dollar, a wrecked economic system, political corruption, involvement in multiple wars, escalating energy costs...amazing though how people ignore all those issues and worry about whether some random dude wants to do another random dude.
1n354a 3 years ago 3
You're right. He is plastered but he is still kickin ass. He is incredible.
dreamsofmineus 3 years ago 10
hitchens kicks ass!!!!
godisanatheist85 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Im a christian and I LOVE HITCHENS!! haha he is so funny!! when he gets mad, he's good, he would destroy me in a battle of words!!! haha He just needs jesus!! He would make a great preacher.
chris7777777777777 3 years ago
Hitchens is magnificent when he's angry
IOUUK3 3 years ago 9
But he's right.
bahramf 3 years ago 16
what is a wfie
opmindcrime 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
hitchens is naive because he preaches personal preferance as reality .he is a closet theist who lies in contempt for the truth he knows implicates him as a satanic failed rebel.
lookwithlove 4 years ago
hitchens knows, he is legend
ryeskelton 4 years ago 14
Wow you are a really f@#ked up individual. Hitchens a - what was it "naive..closet theist - and bla bla bla.
So many completely moronic ideas in 2 sentences. Not worth a rebuttal but I will say;
Well there's always the special olympics for you.
19995700 4 years ago 6
Go Hitch. Bah I wanted to see Pat and Hitch exchange.
And yep, the autopsy proved Hitch correct.
emilyek1 4 years ago 6
Hitchens is a legend! I don't know why he goes on Scarborough though, they clearly don't get on!
TimWill 4 years ago 5
He goes to shows like that because they're an effective channel to communicate to the masses. That's why you see great intellectuals like Hitchens, Dawkins, S. Harris, and others, on shows hosted by the journalists wannabe. Refer O'Rilley as an example.
I'm sure though that people are gradually raising their consciousness and people like Joe Scarborough are even helping by showing them/us their ridicule mentalities and attitudes.
Farewell! :)
a2zguitar 4 years ago 4
I like hitchens, but why is he such an ass whenever he's on Scarborough?
Raxr985 4 years ago
Johnnie Walker Black Label perhaps??
Scrapheap71 4 years ago
yes he has a drinking problem!
Afghanistan4Afghans 4 years ago
No he doesn't.
He drinks, gets drunk and falls down without any problem!!!
X-D
Scrapheap71 4 years ago 6
Joe Scarborough is dangerous in as much as he has perfected quite his act of appearing to be an ordinary blue collar mindset.
The fact that he now occupies Don Imus' old slot on MSNBC shows the lead progression now being administered by cable news to move away from questioning Bush Neo Con policy. Scarboroughs current on air sidekick is the daughter of Zbignew Brezinski, a NWO jr architect and supporter.
tiktoffG13 4 years ago 3
HAHA. The guy on the left looks a little up tight and painful. Raising his voice as if he's important.
PR0GRAMMING 4 years ago
are you asking me or telling me
SIT DOWN SCARBOROUGH
WhyDidYouDeleteME 4 years ago 6
X-WFIE?
Hitch: Still right, even when sloshed!
VeiledHeathen 4 years ago 5
I'm not sure what happened prior to this segment, but Hitchens is right on about the Shivo case.
Daniel123123 4 years ago 3
I looked up another Scarborough video on the net where he's talking about Schiavo, and it's embarrasing how Scarborough goes after a neurologist that was on the show, asking if they did a catscan.. anyway, google it.. Hitchens was right to go after Scarborough on this one, he was being an idiot before Hitch came on.
Daniel123123 4 years ago 2
Scarborough called one of the neurologists who examined Schiavo and found she was brain dead a "fraud" and suggested he'd been bought off by the lawyers for Michael Schiavo.. guess we know who turned on right on that little dispute.
Daniel123123 4 years ago 2
Joe Scarborough thinks he's interesting, yet he always has some jackass on from Tiger Beat to discuss Lyndsey Lohan or Paris. He hates Hitchens because Hitchens bitch ass tells him how pathetic his show is...rs
boo1love 4 years ago
Tiger Beat....HAHAHAHA! Nice one.
steveisgood 4 years ago
For those who call Hitchens a drunk--I shudder to imagine how much ass he could kick if he were sober! He's already off-the-charts intelligent and well-spoken. Drunk? Maybe. Genius? No f-ing doubt.
bratfink74 4 years ago 4
Well put.
PhillyDickinson 4 years ago
Then pray tell--why do you waste your time watching videos of a man whom you call a drunk and who, according to you, speaks lies? Sounds like you're wasting a lot of time on someone in whom you don't believe (which is something I refuse to do when it comes to god).
bratfink74 4 years ago 3
Oh no! He's going to FAX the transcript to Hitchens on MONDAY! Anything but the transcript!
Why does he say it like a threat? Hitchens is a journalist badass, he's not going to let some regulations keep his message down.
tacopylas 4 years ago 2
Hitchens means well but his loosing it
nosson77 4 years ago
Hitchens handed that guys ass pretty damn well.
Guess what people? Some keep remarking that he is drunk. If he is drunk and still makes others look like complete retards that makes him even more of a bad ass.
ptolemi 4 years ago
except for "w-f-i-e" hitchens made some good points
rebharath 4 years ago