I'd like to get Hitch and Paul in an dialogue together.It sounds like he's put on the spot with the Ron Paul issue, and strikes me as generally unconcerned with the man.
It's odd to see Hitchen's uninformed on any topic. I really like the guy but on some topics I think his extreme dislike for religion may cloud his better judgement.
that's the appeal of the Hitch: even if you disagree with what he stands for, when you listen to the logical, well researched arguments he makes, you can't help feel ''yeah, he may have a point!''
wrong. ron paul has explicitly stated that he is a non-interventionist and not an isolationist. so when hitchens brings up the point about cuba, ron paul actually said he wants to trade with cuba and remove the embargo, so hitchens clearly has that wrong.
Paranormal/metaphysical realities must defy Man's rationality, by their very nature as they operate outside and beyond the human definition of the present (the here-now as opposed to the here-after).
Worm food Carl Sagan possessed all the spark of a wet match. Govt. T.V. put him front-and-center. Only govt. T.V. could so liberally promote such a boor. For P.B.S.: market-share is irrelevant as it bows to no free-market forces.
Christ' Hitchens' books aren't hoisted to the top by free-market forces. There's no great hue & cry by the public for what he produces. His books fit the agenda of the tax-funded public library system which ALWAYS champions books & films that promote degeneracy, Marxism and ruination. One needs only to read a local paper to see that the slant of every feature favors cultural Marxism: collectivism, aborticide, internationalism, sacred victims' groups, thought-crime laws & Earth worship.
@procommenter What's wrong with collectivism? It's the individualist,self-indulgent consumerism that, for the most part, has the west in the deep mess it's in.
@procommenter Hey,I'm against abortion,atheistic Marxism and the degenerative,drug culture as much as the next guy,but the days of unbridled,unrestrained capitalism must end and is going to end one way or another.Some form of socialism must advance but if it continues to be a word that people run away from,then the 'wrong' sort of socialism,like the 'cultural marxism' you mention will triumph.Left and Right mean nothing anymore.There can only be the system-and enemies of the system!
@procommenter Well I do live in Canada where there are no American style free speech laws and definite 'soviet style' human rights tribunals are set up to pounce quickly on anyone who forgets the 'politically correct' line of tolerance,liberalism,and all the rest.
At least the Russians (in practice) didn't give everything away while their own internal infrastructure crumbled and Russia today is searching for their national soul while Europe/US deny truths save Wall St, Wal-mart and Wal-let.
As a Ron Paul libertarian as well as a agnostic/atheist, I have no difficulty with Dr. Paul being a believer because he is a strict church/state separatist. Would I admire him more if he were not a delusional theist? Yes, and In the same way, I would have more respect for the reason, witticism and logic of Hitchens if he were not a pro-war, big government socialist. Thankfully, there are more and more libertarian atheists coming forward to say they don't believe either of the two big G's.
When he talks to on Youtube video Authors@Google: Christopher Hitchens, towards the end one of the last questions is about art and music and love... Hitchens replies that that is what is spiritual. He basically says not to confuse it with the Supernatural. This was a very telling comment. He's and anti-theist, meaning anti theological, anti making gods. He believes in our spiritual connection to nature. It's Wonderful to hear that. He's a brilliant man, I hope the best for him.
Hitchens made an absolutely brilliant point in another recent enterview,
He said that he absolutely does not argue against the idea of a prime mover ot God, just against those that say they know or are an authority on the subject!
With this point i completely agree.
The majority of Atheists could learn a lesson from this- dawkins included!
Atheists would do well to remember this fact!
Hitchens is agnostic at heart not atheist- we see more of it as the end nears for him! him!
@commonsensrules You have his position all wrong. He's stated many times that he feels no need to argue against the concept of a prime mover, that doesn't mean he himself believes in one. Besides, if he did believe in a prime mover that would make him a deist not an agnostic.
Dude looks like he is drunk, watch while the interviewer speaks- Hitchens looks like he is struggling just to be sitting there- THEN , the interviewer finishes and Hitchens busts out some precise shit like nobodies business!
The guys is a wretched genius- too bad i don't agree with a thing he says. He argues beautifully, but he argues all the wrong points.
AN Athiest Preist preaching to the unconverted masses- hawking the anti religion religion!
so cleaver, yet so arrogant, and frankly sums up everything about current western/modern leadership or their associates. like the different takes and formations of western state systems and its 'democratic' ideologies, so too the muslims DEBATE their differences. the fact that Islamism hasnt been beaten to the stone age like bush and hitchens and bernard lewis may have wished, is a testimony to its level of strength, resilience and more then all divinity. civilisations go through ups and downs X
@3iun The reason that Islamism hasnt been beaten to a stone age is because of Islamic militant strategy of unhumane birth reproductions and....no...actually...that's it..oh, yea, also because they hide their geo-political ideology under the umbrella of "religion"
@Deus2Vexillum, well thats a point of view.. it does not however explain how Islam has weathered all this time to still make you feel insecure (Socially, economicaly (think 1973 oil embargo), phisically). Same could be said about christianity and judaism.. surly there has to be an element of divinity in them if current 'modern/liberal' tought and 'progression' hasnt quitened them down. just a thought. X
@3iun .....I suggest the women in islam feel secure..especially the ones who are suffering under a rape and sexual abuse epidemic as has been the case for 1000 years. Rape victims in islam need 4 male witnesess to back up their plea..if they are not found she will be found guilty of unlawful sex and given 500 lashes or stoned to death...very devine.
@Deus2Vexillum... thats the only argument ppl always fall back on.. anyhow- am a product of sound British education and society, and id never consciencally follow what you describe. you have it the wrong way round.. its if a woman is convicted of sinning then she is to be lashed only if there are four witnesses seeing the act of penetration, now unles its some sex part of practising muslims lol, very hard to prove and then left shes left to repent on her own. X
@3iun ...an argument to fall back on? you mean islamic law as practissed in muslims countries? Your description of how some poor unfortunate women will only be lashed if she ...' if a woman is convicted of sinning then she is to be lashed only if there are four witnesses seeing the act of penetration'....Sinning? What the fuck is that? Your pathetic aplology for this backward sick fucked up death cult is all the proof I need that your either a left wing cunt or a muslim.
@Deus2Vexillum... ofcourse how its practised in Muslim countries! where else?! and who on earth are you to see yourself better then others for what they believe and practise? you just have ur opinion and let it burn you inside! you can only pick on the issue of women, which you dont kno much about so am goingto leave it at that.. bout economics, culture, engineering etc? i suggest get read first before making assumptions bout peoples beliefs. x
Perhaps the first interview in which the questions asked were on a level at which Hitchens can display his intellect and not have to make anyone look utterly foolish. Finally a video of Hitchens at his most eloquent.
Hitchens really is a terrific mass-debater! His favourite word is "proselytize" because he's the only person in the world who knows what it means. He's 100% guaranteed to disagree with YOU, or your money back! :-)
WHY ISNT HITCHENS PRESIDENT (of the usa) it would do you yanks some good!
Why? Too much change,simple people are afraid of change for better or for worse,they cant see past that,why are we doomed to live in a shit world when we all could make it better, IGNORANCE FUCKING IGNORANCE!
azmanabdula, actually it's because he's not native born so can't run. Now personally I wouldn't mind it if he could run. I'm a US citizen by fate of birth. Christopher Hitchens on the other hand is an American by choice, having left his country of birth to join us.
isolationism is immoral in a world like this. we must do something and not fall into isolationist indifference. we must fight evil and war is the only answer. iraq war is a noble effort to make something great.
@bigbrothersucksarse noble but appalling, you claim war to be noble,it isn't, what it achieved might be,if the plan worked,if it was a good plan and how others saw it!
I thought Hitchens was familiar with Ron Paul's position... weird. Ron Paul almost always follows the quote about entangling alliances by saying that we should talk to other countries, trade with them, etc. and that he isn't isolationist, just neutral like the Swiss.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchens is far more credible when he restricts his opinions to religion. He sounds like Jerry Falwell when he speaks of foreign policy. His support of, and excuses for, his support for the Iraq war are grotesque
His views on religion are the reason for his views on foreign policy. You can not separate the two. The atheist left is routinely hypocritical in their lack of criticism of silly faiths that are not Christian. You are an example of this phony "atheism".
@PlanetoftheAtheists I'm firmly against the war too, but when one listens to Hitchen's defense of the invasion one understands that this is a position with fair arguments and principles reasoning behind it, despite the failing which were more largely post-invasion.
@CiaranLuke ...i dont know, all i can say is i thought long and hard about what the consequences of invading, occupying and rebuilding Iraq would be.....pre invasion. And every one of my predictions came true, with some of the more cynical ones being surpassed
@CiaranLuke Agreed. Most of the mistakes were in the execution of the war. Removing Saddam, however, was not a mistake. That man was the definition of tyrant and the evil bastard got what he deserved.
So you prefer totalitarianism and fascism to a chance of having the kind of rights we westeners take for granted? It seems to me that you like your freedoms to say what you want, to choose who you vote and to choose who you can love, but you aren't ready to help (even in words, let alone actions) others achieve that dream that you are living.
The Chinese are not even closely as badly off as people under despot rulers in Africa or formerly in Iraq. The North Koreans of course take the cake when it comes to a horrible tyranny to live under. Yes I think all people should have the right to choose their leaders and express what ever thoughts they wish. In the cases of both China and NK nothing much can be done beside diplomacy.
Your innuendo did not escape me but I'll let it pass as a simple prejudice.
I concur that while he deserves 10/10 when it comes to the topic of religion, he earns from me bare 5/10 on most other topics. just read the love, poverty and war, if nothing else. nice form, that s it.
"hoped they'd get the muslims of india to rise against the british army. They didn't. Ended up not just losing the war but losing..." and I can't figure out what he says right after that.
I really like hitch but he gets carried away by his hate for radical islamists and religions per se. And he was wrong about the Invasion of Irak and is not able to reconsider.
The USA has to much troops placed everywhere on the globe. and want´s to rule the middle east because of the oil and gas there. It has nothing to do with human rights or freedom.
I'm an Atheist, but I couldn't care less about his religious views. He definitely isn't very religious, though. I've seen speeches in which he's denounced Christianity and called it violent and even false.
It is not his religious views (about which offhand I know nothing) that most concern me, but rather what is either his complete scientific illiteracy or his willingness to feign it.
Either way, this renders him entirely unfit for public office.
polymath, I agree that feigned or genuine scientific illiteracy renders one unfit for public office (unless I misunderstood you). But religious views are also relevant.
Anyone who gives allegiance first & foremost to a deity is going to make decisions based on the desire to ingratiate himself with that deity, and with clergy & fellow believers
Perhaps scientists, engineers, etc., know how to solve problems; politicians don't.
But I am *far* from indifferent to a candidate's religious views -even if one must admit that with almost any candidate, what exactly what his religious beliefs and how strongly they are held is necessarily speculative to a degree that his views on evolution are not.
However in Paul's case I said little about this simply because off the top of my head, I really have no notion of the strength of his religious convictions.
Also, keep in mind that he's a Rep. from Texas (a state where Bible thumpers are common). If he said he believed in Evolution he never would have been elected.
@tempchannel1 As an unapologetic McCain supporter I find that assessment as meaningless as the inane platform of the neo confederate scum bag from Texas, who I assume based on your stereotyped almost pre recorded comment is your ideal candidate.
The fact is the time of racist xenophobic reactionary southerners is over. They are in many ways the equivalent of the Islamic reactionaries we face, and like the Islamists share an impossible agenda.
I really do get frustrated about that. But when you think about his genuine adherence to the US Constitution you know that he will not be making any policies based on religious beliefs.
His lack of scientific knowledge is kind of disturbing, especially because he was a GP. But his wisdom in finance surpasses most other politicians and he seems to be one of the very few politicians who refuse to be bought out. In this sense I like Kucinich, too.
But you voted for "Barack Obama" who dunked his children in water. And supports the unconstitutional "faith based initiative" insanity.
He was married by the lunatic "Reverend Wright"?!
Can't you see your own hypocrisy?!
Paul is a true secularist, whereas Hitch is a neocon, jewish tribalist, trotskyist apologist, and dare, I say, HOBAMOSEXUAL of the worst kind.....Said in a monty python reference.
The american financial model is about low GNP concentration in the budget (10-15%); in fact, it's the only one it can support. Thus, a smaller government like the one Ron Paul suggests would be perfect for stimulating small business and achieving economic growth. I don't know what the beef is between Hitchens and him, but I support them both in my own way.
I like ron paul also, but i think you omit the incredible extent Paul wants to shrink government. Paul is against the Civil War, he thought the federal gov't overstepped its bounds. He wants 2 abolish the CIA, as well as every department of gov't ( education, V.A., energy, etc). What i like about Ron Paul is his true conservatism, but there is no doubt he is rabid in his beliefs to the point where the country will look like a 19th century version of itself
I also like Ron Paul, but i think you omit the enormous extent he wants to shrink gov't.
Paul is against the Civil War... he thought the fed gov't over stepped its bounds. He wants to abolish the CIA, as well as every gov't department (education, V.A., energy, etc).
Most liberals like myself like Pauls foreign policy, but he takes conservatism to rabid levels.
He and Hitchens disagree most on the War on Terror issue. Hitchens is a STRONG advocate and Paul is a strong opposer.
A "philosophical" aspect of libertarianism is that it frightens people because they don't have so much covered by officialism. (In a way I think it is metaphoric of atheism.) It is so radical because it requires the majority of people to be individuals and to have future outlook so as to be responsible. As a society, I don't believe we are there yet, we cannot handle libertarianism. But I do believe the day will come, maybe not for centuries though. :(
I think Hitchens has a point about the political-religious entanglements and how they might justify the wars in the Middle East. But he often doesn't address the economic factors playing into why the government actually began the war. American foreign policy makers had no intention of having this war for most of the reasons Hitchens supports it. Rather, these reasons are just a positive byproduct to a very negative overall event.
I think thats a fair assessment. I am a fan of Hitchens but your right on that about the economic factors. I am also a fan on paul. Pauls major factor to is the financial aspect of such wars especially the amount of years there. Paul is head over heals on economics for sure in relation to hitchens.
I'm not sure if you're joking but if you aren't then you misunderstood me.
I am not saying the war helped the American economy at all. It served the interest of the companies involved in weapons manufacturing and military contracts (the military-industrial complex) of which the US gov't has unmitigated entanglement, particularly the Republican party (obviously not Ron Paul, though).
The Iraq war made a lot of rich people richer, and even more government corruption than in the 80s under Reagan.
He didn't say that in this interview, but he has spoken about the factor of removing the oil reserves from the 'crime family' in Iraq, so it could be traded normally - an economic benefit.
That's some lucky whiskey.
chicagonative17 1 month ago
Did the interviewer call it a 'straw man poll'? lol
GiantSandles 1 month ago
I'd like to get Hitch and Paul in an dialogue together.It sounds like he's put on the spot with the Ron Paul issue, and strikes me as generally unconcerned with the man.
cnmaster01 2 months ago
Comment removed
shamayaify 3 months ago
It's odd to see Hitchen's uninformed on any topic. I really like the guy but on some topics I think his extreme dislike for religion may cloud his better judgement.
DGoose33 4 months ago
Can't post url's, so copy and paste the link below to see what Ron Paul says about Isolationism Vs. Non-Interventionism
youtube (dot) com / watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM
SuperAwesomeAtheist 5 months ago
Comment removed
PurpleHoneyBear 5 months ago
Thank you for posting this, DailyHitchens.
writersblock26 6 months ago
I'd much rather rename this movie into : Christopher Hitchens would support Ron Paul if he knew the real truth about him.
bluberica 6 months ago
that's the appeal of the Hitch: even if you disagree with what he stands for, when you listen to the logical, well researched arguments he makes, you can't help feel ''yeah, he may have a point!''
marcohorowitz8 9 months ago 3
Every time I read Hitchens or watch an interview with him I realize how little other commentators know.
2edsajdmsa 10 months ago 5
wrong. ron paul has explicitly stated that he is a non-interventionist and not an isolationist. so when hitchens brings up the point about cuba, ron paul actually said he wants to trade with cuba and remove the embargo, so hitchens clearly has that wrong.
farfoose 10 months ago 4
I like Hitchens, especially on religion - though I'm not atheist. But, the last person he would want to debate on the middle east is Ron Paul.
bcbobbie 11 months ago 2
this is one of the best interviews ive seen of him.
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
Death to religion is life to humanity .
Earrot 1 year ago 9
Paranormal/metaphysical realities must defy Man's rationality, by their very nature as they operate outside and beyond the human definition of the present (the here-now as opposed to the here-after).
procommenter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Worm food Carl Sagan possessed all the spark of a wet match. Govt. T.V. put him front-and-center. Only govt. T.V. could so liberally promote such a boor. For P.B.S.: market-share is irrelevant as it bows to no free-market forces.
procommenter 1 year ago
Christ' Hitchens' books aren't hoisted to the top by free-market forces. There's no great hue & cry by the public for what he produces. His books fit the agenda of the tax-funded public library system which ALWAYS champions books & films that promote degeneracy, Marxism and ruination. One needs only to read a local paper to see that the slant of every feature favors cultural Marxism: collectivism, aborticide, internationalism, sacred victims' groups, thought-crime laws & Earth worship.
procommenter 1 year ago
@procommenter What's wrong with collectivism? It's the individualist,self-indulgent consumerism that, for the most part, has the west in the deep mess it's in.
utubnik 1 year ago
@utubnik : I choose freedom. I have no interest in subsidizing your rent.
procommenter 1 year ago
@procommenter Hey,I'm against abortion,atheistic Marxism and the degenerative,drug culture as much as the next guy,but the days of unbridled,unrestrained capitalism must end and is going to end one way or another.Some form of socialism must advance but if it continues to be a word that people run away from,then the 'wrong' sort of socialism,like the 'cultural marxism' you mention will triumph.Left and Right mean nothing anymore.There can only be the system-and enemies of the system!
utubnik 1 year ago
Comment removed
procommenter 1 year ago
@procommenter Well I do live in Canada where there are no American style free speech laws and definite 'soviet style' human rights tribunals are set up to pounce quickly on anyone who forgets the 'politically correct' line of tolerance,liberalism,and all the rest.
At least the Russians (in practice) didn't give everything away while their own internal infrastructure crumbled and Russia today is searching for their national soul while Europe/US deny truths save Wall St, Wal-mart and Wal-let.
utubnik 1 year ago 3
@utubnik : You champion collectivism. There has never been a collectivist nation whose citizens had self-sovereignty.
procommenter 1 year ago
@utubnik "Some form of socialism must advance?" I fervently hope not.
tamething1 1 year ago
@utubnik What's wrong with collectivism is that it never, ever works, as the history books attest. Even capitalism works better.
tamething1 1 year ago 3
Ahmadinejad is completely insane. He actually believes that the US is harboring Bin laden.
Seriously, how fucking mental do you have to be to think that?
Phelan666 1 year ago
Comment removed
dawkinsspoke 1 year ago
As a Ron Paul libertarian as well as a agnostic/atheist, I have no difficulty with Dr. Paul being a believer because he is a strict church/state separatist. Would I admire him more if he were not a delusional theist? Yes, and In the same way, I would have more respect for the reason, witticism and logic of Hitchens if he were not a pro-war, big government socialist. Thankfully, there are more and more libertarian atheists coming forward to say they don't believe either of the two big G's.
jeffersonianideal 1 year ago
When he talks to on Youtube video Authors@Google: Christopher Hitchens, towards the end one of the last questions is about art and music and love... Hitchens replies that that is what is spiritual. He basically says not to confuse it with the Supernatural. This was a very telling comment. He's and anti-theist, meaning anti theological, anti making gods. He believes in our spiritual connection to nature. It's Wonderful to hear that. He's a brilliant man, I hope the best for him.
NuPheonix 1 year ago
Hitchens made an absolutely brilliant point in another recent enterview,
He said that he absolutely does not argue against the idea of a prime mover ot God, just against those that say they know or are an authority on the subject!
With this point i completely agree.
The majority of Atheists could learn a lesson from this- dawkins included!
Atheists would do well to remember this fact!
Hitchens is agnostic at heart not atheist- we see more of it as the end nears for him! him!
commonsensrules 1 year ago
@commonsensrules How do you know? He'll never be an agnostic. He doesn't ever sit on a fence and thank God for that. LOL!
eqsmooth 1 year ago
@eqsmooth
I know becaue in a later interview he alludes to that fact.
It's the one that has his "friend" that comes into the interveiw and speaks on that very subject.
Hitchens acknowledges his friends statement and adds to it- i suggest you check it out!
commonsensrules 1 year ago
@commonsensrules You have his position all wrong. He's stated many times that he feels no need to argue against the concept of a prime mover, that doesn't mean he himself believes in one. Besides, if he did believe in a prime mover that would make him a deist not an agnostic.
PossessDismiss 1 year ago
@eqsmooth Of course he doesn't ever sit on a fence. Such a thing would be uncomfortable for his massive balls. :D
samOFblorx 1 year ago
@commonsensrules You can be both agnostic and atheist. You can be both agnostic and theist. Have you read nothing on the subject at all?
samOFblorx 1 year ago
Comment removed
PossessDismiss 1 year ago
Dude looks like he is drunk, watch while the interviewer speaks- Hitchens looks like he is struggling just to be sitting there- THEN , the interviewer finishes and Hitchens busts out some precise shit like nobodies business!
The guys is a wretched genius- too bad i don't agree with a thing he says. He argues beautifully, but he argues all the wrong points.
AN Athiest Preist preaching to the unconverted masses- hawking the anti religion religion!
And convert they do!
commonsensrules 1 year ago
@commonsensrules .the drunk look is absolute boredom at having to talk to liberals and God believers who dont have 1/5 of his brain power.
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
hitchens= a stupid idiot and puppet of the elite
SpiritMolecule1 1 year ago
why do all atheists consider themselves rational and the rest irrational?
TheKap1an 1 year ago
@TheKap1an, tell me about it mate, i recon it arrogance and small mindedness, as if the rest dont see or hear or know what they know..
3iun 1 year ago
Is that a glass of Johnnie Walker Black label?
Poleschs 1 year ago
@Poleschs ...you would need a bottle of Black Label to have to sit there and talk to these liberal twats.....
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
@Poleschs I could have a Johnnie Walker any day...
Poleschs 1 year ago
so cleaver, yet so arrogant, and frankly sums up everything about current western/modern leadership or their associates. like the different takes and formations of western state systems and its 'democratic' ideologies, so too the muslims DEBATE their differences. the fact that Islamism hasnt been beaten to the stone age like bush and hitchens and bernard lewis may have wished, is a testimony to its level of strength, resilience and more then all divinity. civilisations go through ups and downs X
3iun 1 year ago
@3iun The reason that Islamism hasnt been beaten to a stone age is because of Islamic militant strategy of unhumane birth reproductions and....no...actually...that's it..oh, yea, also because they hide their geo-political ideology under the umbrella of "religion"
mowgly3000 1 year ago
@3iun .islam didn't have to be beaten to the stone age because its already been there for the past 1000 years.
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
@Deus2Vexillum, well thats a point of view.. it does not however explain how Islam has weathered all this time to still make you feel insecure (Socially, economicaly (think 1973 oil embargo), phisically). Same could be said about christianity and judaism.. surly there has to be an element of divinity in them if current 'modern/liberal' tought and 'progression' hasnt quitened them down. just a thought. X
3iun 1 year ago
@3iun .....I suggest the women in islam feel secure..especially the ones who are suffering under a rape and sexual abuse epidemic as has been the case for 1000 years. Rape victims in islam need 4 male witnesess to back up their plea..if they are not found she will be found guilty of unlawful sex and given 500 lashes or stoned to death...very devine.
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
@Deus2Vexillum... thats the only argument ppl always fall back on.. anyhow- am a product of sound British education and society, and id never consciencally follow what you describe. you have it the wrong way round.. its if a woman is convicted of sinning then she is to be lashed only if there are four witnesses seeing the act of penetration, now unles its some sex part of practising muslims lol, very hard to prove and then left shes left to repent on her own. X
3iun 1 year ago
@3iun ...an argument to fall back on? you mean islamic law as practissed in muslims countries? Your description of how some poor unfortunate women will only be lashed if she ...' if a woman is convicted of sinning then she is to be lashed only if there are four witnesses seeing the act of penetration'....Sinning? What the fuck is that? Your pathetic aplology for this backward sick fucked up death cult is all the proof I need that your either a left wing cunt or a muslim.
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
@Deus2Vexillum... ofcourse how its practised in Muslim countries! where else?! and who on earth are you to see yourself better then others for what they believe and practise? you just have ur opinion and let it burn you inside! you can only pick on the issue of women, which you dont kno much about so am goingto leave it at that.. bout economics, culture, engineering etc? i suggest get read first before making assumptions bout peoples beliefs. x
3iun 1 year ago
We love his mind.....like all rationalists he's ignored his body
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
Love you, Hitch. Get better:)
magicpony9 1 year ago
Get well soon Chris.
Shenkoa360 1 year ago
wow.. now I know that during my birthday, hitchens was doing this while I was doing physics homework
panamanian911 1 year ago
oh crap... he's looking sick, i hope he overcomes his illness
lukeism2 1 year ago
Perhaps the first interview in which the questions asked were on a level at which Hitchens can display his intellect and not have to make anyone look utterly foolish. Finally a video of Hitchens at his most eloquent.
dagame81790 1 year ago
Replies to replies to replies,
Any cause being "just" ? WTFf! just.......
Can you explain "just."!
Explain your cultural limitations which allegedly explains "being" just" and the final definition of "just."
Which version of these "holy books" are subjected to the criteria of science that they currently are arguing for judgment by?
tiznogodz 1 year ago
He looks bloody ill :(
StreetLegal75 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens really is a terrific mass-debater! His favourite word is "proselytize" because he's the only person in the world who knows what it means. He's 100% guaranteed to disagree with YOU, or your money back! :-)
benthejrporter 1 year ago
A Hitchens-style Big Brother diary room! I love it!
benthejrporter 1 year ago
Beauty is a parable of impotent yearning, its passionate aspiration, its conscience-stricken care, and unfettered curiosity.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
What Kind of scotch is that... I bet its fucking good
EveryHumanBeing 1 year ago
Johnnie walker black label his fav
evilsanta1989 1 year ago
Rik Mayall hair!
cottonwhiskersuk 1 year ago
WHY ISNT HITCHENS PRESIDENT (of the usa) it would do you yanks some good!
Why? Too much change,simple people are afraid of change for better or for worse,they cant see past that,why are we doomed to live in a shit world when we all could make it better, IGNORANCE FUCKING IGNORANCE!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
azmanabdula, actually it's because he's not native born so can't run. Now personally I wouldn't mind it if he could run. I'm a US citizen by fate of birth. Christopher Hitchens on the other hand is an American by choice, having left his country of birth to join us.
JustAnotherMutant 1 year ago
@JustAnotherMutant did not think of that! americans are strange
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula
Actually the reason he isn't president is because he wasn't born in the US, dingus!
ballersack 1 year ago
@ballersack fuck your smart! fuck all your presidents anyways, retards
azmanabdula 1 year ago
I wish Hitchens would look after himself. When he's gone, he's gone.
Kevo216666 1 year ago 16
@Kevo216666 how ironic you should have said that
grengd 1 year ago
@grengd I remember posting this but I couldn't remember where. I didn't think he looked well here at all. Massive shame, hope he beats the odds.
Kevo216666 1 year ago
@Kevo216666 Me, too.
writersblock26 6 months ago
@Kevo216666 There will be another.
LordofBarons 6 months ago
isolationism is immoral in a world like this. we must do something and not fall into isolationist indifference. we must fight evil and war is the only answer. iraq war is a noble effort to make something great.
bigbrothersucksarse 1 year ago
@bigbrothersucksarse noble but appalling, you claim war to be noble,it isn't, what it achieved might be,if the plan worked,if it was a good plan and how others saw it!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
I thought Hitchens was familiar with Ron Paul's position... weird. Ron Paul almost always follows the quote about entangling alliances by saying that we should talk to other countries, trade with them, etc. and that he isn't isolationist, just neutral like the Swiss.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is far more credible when he restricts his opinions to religion. He sounds like Jerry Falwell when he speaks of foreign policy. His support of, and excuses for, his support for the Iraq war are grotesque
PlanetoftheAtheists 1 year ago
@PlanetoftheAtheists
His views on religion are the reason for his views on foreign policy. You can not separate the two. The atheist left is routinely hypocritical in their lack of criticism of silly faiths that are not Christian. You are an example of this phony "atheism".
iSAW7 1 year ago
@iSAW7 Criticism =/= violence
tim035 1 year ago
@tim035 1+2=3
iSAW7 1 year ago
@PlanetoftheAtheists I'm firmly against the war too, but when one listens to Hitchen's defense of the invasion one understands that this is a position with fair arguments and principles reasoning behind it, despite the failing which were more largely post-invasion.
CiaranLuke 1 year ago 23
@CiaranLuke ...i dont know, all i can say is i thought long and hard about what the consequences of invading, occupying and rebuilding Iraq would be.....pre invasion. And every one of my predictions came true, with some of the more cynical ones being surpassed
PlanetoftheAtheists 1 year ago
@CiaranLuke Agreed. Most of the mistakes were in the execution of the war. Removing Saddam, however, was not a mistake. That man was the definition of tyrant and the evil bastard got what he deserved.
Phelan666 1 year ago
@PlanetoftheAtheists
So you prefer totalitarianism and fascism to a chance of having the kind of rights we westeners take for granted? It seems to me that you like your freedoms to say what you want, to choose who you vote and to choose who you can love, but you aren't ready to help (even in words, let alone actions) others achieve that dream that you are living.
omegavalerius 1 year ago
@omegavalerius are you talking about the chinese, koreans, and many africans? or is that too far from the oil?
berrylict 1 year ago
@berrylict
The Chinese are not even closely as badly off as people under despot rulers in Africa or formerly in Iraq. The North Koreans of course take the cake when it comes to a horrible tyranny to live under. Yes I think all people should have the right to choose their leaders and express what ever thoughts they wish. In the cases of both China and NK nothing much can be done beside diplomacy.
Your innuendo did not escape me but I'll let it pass as a simple prejudice.
omegavalerius 1 year ago
@PlanetoftheAtheists
I concur that while he deserves 10/10 when it comes to the topic of religion, he earns from me bare 5/10 on most other topics. just read the love, poverty and war, if nothing else. nice form, that s it.
berrylict 1 year ago
many thanks!
bdk1234567 1 year ago
"hoped they'd get the muslims of india to rise against the british army. They didn't. Ended up not just losing the war but losing..." and I can't figure out what he says right after that.
bdk1234567 1 year ago
..but losing the (or their) caliphate..
DailyHitchens 1 year ago
@bdk1234567 The word is caliphate
Pezzab5 1 year ago
@bdk1234567
He says "but losing their caliphate". A caliphate is a sort of Islamic empire.
tmcthree 1 year ago
@bdk1234567 losing the Caliphate
Robin89uk 1 year ago
he's beginning to look like andrew lloyd webber
StephenKuma 1 year ago
@StephenKuma
Perhaps they both drink the same brand of whiskey?
skybart 1 year ago 2
lol that Hitchens is now predicting earthquakes. I know the reason and implication is not the same, but it reminds me of a certain religious maniac.
rothery86 1 year ago
Good questions. Thanks for the post.
druidee1 1 year ago
Free Trade Agreements are an unacceptable surrender upon national sovereignty.
baresolid 1 year ago
I really like hitch but he gets carried away by his hate for radical islamists and religions per se. And he was wrong about the Invasion of Irak and is not able to reconsider.
The USA has to much troops placed everywhere on the globe. and want´s to rule the middle east because of the oil and gas there. It has nothing to do with human rights or freedom.
pcuimac 1 year ago
Ron Paul is a true revolutionary.
tempchannel1 1 year ago
Yes, yes, Ron Paul is true revolutionary who can't bring himself say -when directly asked- that Evolution is scientifically demonstrated.
Such a person is simply not to be taken seriously.
And yes, for *that* alone...
polymath7 1 year ago 32
I'm an Atheist, but I couldn't care less about his religious views. He definitely isn't very religious, though. I've seen speeches in which he's denounced Christianity and called it violent and even false.
tempchannel1 1 year ago
It is not his religious views (about which offhand I know nothing) that most concern me, but rather what is either his complete scientific illiteracy or his willingness to feign it.
Either way, this renders him entirely unfit for public office.
polymath7 1 year ago
polymath, I agree that feigned or genuine scientific illiteracy renders one unfit for public office (unless I misunderstood you). But religious views are also relevant.
Anyone who gives allegiance first & foremost to a deity is going to make decisions based on the desire to ingratiate himself with that deity, and with clergy & fellow believers
Perhaps scientists, engineers, etc., know how to solve problems; politicians don't.
queenastilon 1 year ago
You certainly got the first part right.
But I am *far* from indifferent to a candidate's religious views -even if one must admit that with almost any candidate, what exactly what his religious beliefs and how strongly they are held is necessarily speculative to a degree that his views on evolution are not.
However in Paul's case I said little about this simply because off the top of my head, I really have no notion of the strength of his religious convictions.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7 - ok I get that :)
queenastilon 1 year ago
Also, keep in mind that he's a Rep. from Texas (a state where Bible thumpers are common). If he said he believed in Evolution he never would have been elected.
tempchannel1 1 year ago
Frankly I don't give a damn whether he's sincere or not in declaring himself an utter ignoramus.
I doubt merely affirming the veracity of Evolution would debar him election even in Texas, and in any event he said this while running for PRESIDENT.
Moreover, no demand of political expediency, however exigent, can justify this for the statesman -let alone to the thinking voter.
polymath7 1 year ago
Obama voters, McCain voters and Bush votes are not thinking voters.
tempchannel1 1 year ago
So far you give no indication that *you're* thinking voter-rather the obverse.
polymath7 1 year ago
If you wasted your vote on cynthia mckinnie, bob barr, or chuck baldwin, then perhaps you are the one not thinking.
mleonsmith 1 year ago
@tempchannel1 As an unapologetic McCain supporter I find that assessment as meaningless as the inane platform of the neo confederate scum bag from Texas, who I assume based on your stereotyped almost pre recorded comment is your ideal candidate.
The fact is the time of racist xenophobic reactionary southerners is over. They are in many ways the equivalent of the Islamic reactionaries we face, and like the Islamists share an impossible agenda.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
I really do get frustrated about that. But when you think about his genuine adherence to the US Constitution you know that he will not be making any policies based on religious beliefs.
His lack of scientific knowledge is kind of disturbing, especially because he was a GP. But his wisdom in finance surpasses most other politicians and he seems to be one of the very few politicians who refuse to be bought out. In this sense I like Kucinich, too.
bighugejake 1 year ago
@polymath7
But you voted for "Barack Obama" who dunked his children in water. And supports the unconstitutional "faith based initiative" insanity.
He was married by the lunatic "Reverend Wright"?!
Can't you see your own hypocrisy?!
Paul is a true secularist, whereas Hitch is a neocon, jewish tribalist, trotskyist apologist, and dare, I say, HOBAMOSEXUAL of the worst kind.....Said in a monty python reference.
socratic1968 1 year ago
@socratic1968 Hitchens is a neocon? LOL. What color is the sky in your world?
VesusSheist 1 year ago
@polymath7 true enough!, if a politician isnt behind science...they arent behind rationality... and so they shouldnt be taken seriously
boorens18 1 year ago
@polymath7 Paul actually went one further than that and said he rejected evolution on the grounds that it's "just a theory".
Averagegamer100 1 year ago
The american financial model is about low GNP concentration in the budget (10-15%); in fact, it's the only one it can support. Thus, a smaller government like the one Ron Paul suggests would be perfect for stimulating small business and achieving economic growth. I don't know what the beef is between Hitchens and him, but I support them both in my own way.
goldragon988 1 year ago
I like ron paul also, but i think you omit the incredible extent Paul wants to shrink government. Paul is against the Civil War, he thought the federal gov't overstepped its bounds. He wants 2 abolish the CIA, as well as every department of gov't ( education, V.A., energy, etc). What i like about Ron Paul is his true conservatism, but there is no doubt he is rabid in his beliefs to the point where the country will look like a 19th century version of itself
mleonsmith 1 year ago
I also like Ron Paul, but i think you omit the enormous extent he wants to shrink gov't.
Paul is against the Civil War... he thought the fed gov't over stepped its bounds. He wants to abolish the CIA, as well as every gov't department (education, V.A., energy, etc).
Most liberals like myself like Pauls foreign policy, but he takes conservatism to rabid levels.
He and Hitchens disagree most on the War on Terror issue. Hitchens is a STRONG advocate and Paul is a strong opposer.
mleonsmith 1 year ago
A "philosophical" aspect of libertarianism is that it frightens people because they don't have so much covered by officialism. (In a way I think it is metaphoric of atheism.) It is so radical because it requires the majority of people to be individuals and to have future outlook so as to be responsible. As a society, I don't believe we are there yet, we cannot handle libertarianism. But I do believe the day will come, maybe not for centuries though. :(
bighugejake 1 year ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 1 year ago
I think Hitchens has a point about the political-religious entanglements and how they might justify the wars in the Middle East. But he often doesn't address the economic factors playing into why the government actually began the war. American foreign policy makers had no intention of having this war for most of the reasons Hitchens supports it. Rather, these reasons are just a positive byproduct to a very negative overall event.
bighugejake 1 year ago
I think thats a fair assessment. I am a fan of Hitchens but your right on that about the economic factors. I am also a fan on paul. Pauls major factor to is the financial aspect of such wars especially the amount of years there. Paul is head over heals on economics for sure in relation to hitchens.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
@bighugejake Yeah cuz the War helped the U.S Economy so much.
lord69z 1 year ago
I'm not sure if you're joking but if you aren't then you misunderstood me.
I am not saying the war helped the American economy at all. It served the interest of the companies involved in weapons manufacturing and military contracts (the military-industrial complex) of which the US gov't has unmitigated entanglement, particularly the Republican party (obviously not Ron Paul, though).
The Iraq war made a lot of rich people richer, and even more government corruption than in the 80s under Reagan.
bighugejake 1 year ago
He didn't say that in this interview, but he has spoken about the factor of removing the oil reserves from the 'crime family' in Iraq, so it could be traded normally - an economic benefit.
LikeAPossum 1 year ago
Comment removed
bighugejake 1 year ago