What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's the first word that comes to mind when you hear the name, Christopher Hitchens?"............R.I.P. (providing, that is, he's capable)
I didn't know he had ceased to exist. Not being a fan, I can't say that I care that much. Anyway, I say thank goodness his combination of some Liberal views along with his Islamophoic warmongering views are not that inimitable.
dmarks, have you noticed how wd is always portraying individuals that he disagrees with in the most unfavorable light possible? It's not enough simply to disagree with somebody. He also has to vilify and denigrate them and to absolutely impugn their motivation as well. It's really starting to get scary lately.
Will: dmarks, have you noticed how wd is always portraying individuals that he disagrees with in the most unfavorable light possible?
I was just stating the facts. In reality, it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR.
And, if I had cited Christopher Hitchens to support an argument I was making... you can rest assurred that dmarks would be criticizing Hitchens for his "anti-Zionist" views.
wd, you accused the man of being an "Islamophobic War-Mongerer". That isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And like Mr. dmarks said, maybe let the body cool for a scootch before you slander the poor bastard.
Will: Next he will call Hitchens a war criminal. He's done this in the past to individuals he dislikes. Not for any reason, not with repsect to any evidence, but just as a means of insult.
WD said: "it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR."
Let me all your bluff. Show me ONE place where I had such an unbalanced statement about either FDR or Michael Moore.
As for Hitchens antisemitic views which you referred to, I am not aware of any of them.
Truth: I respect atheists, of course. I respect all faiths. And I specifically respect Hitchens' expression of his.
-------------
All: Views about Hitchens are kind of a litmus test as to whom here is a critical thinker, and which one of us is an unhinged idealogue. Only one of us, in fact, decided to grind some axes and ignore any facts or balance.
dmarks: Next he will call Hitchens a war criminal. He's done this in the past to individuals he dislikes.
That is a bald-faced lie. Hitchens was never in a position where he could make decisions that could be considered war crimes. Although he did support bush's war crimes. So I'd say he was a war crimes supporter, but not a war criminal himself.
Also, you're implying that I've called bush a war criminal because I "dislike" him, which is another bald-faced lie. I've presented facts to back up my allegations. You may disagree with them, but that does not mean I haven't presented them... and rested my case solely on my dislike of bush.
dmarks: Let me call your bluff. Show me ONE place where I had such an unbalanced statement...
No "bluff". What I describe actually happened. I can provide links to the posts if you like. But you seem to be confused. I quoted Will, therefore the "you" I was referring to was Will and NOT dmarks.
dmarks: As for Hitchens anti-Semitic views which you referred to, I am not aware of any of them.
I said "anti-Zionist", not "anti-Semitic", but I don't think you know the difference. Also, this is how you respond when you're informed of a view you disagree with from a person you're defending? Say you're "not aware" of it? Jeez... I wonder if dmarks will ever become aware... or just continue to feign ignorance?
WD said: "Although he did support bush's war crimes"
You prove my point about tossing out the "war criminal" insult without evidence. Hitchens is exactly as guilty of them as Bush is.
"So I'd say he was a war crimes supporter,"
Talk about a bald-faced lie.
"No "bluff". What I describe actually happened. I can provide links to the posts if you like. But you seem to be confused. I quoted Will, therefore the "you" I was referring to was Will and NOT dmarks."
You blundered. I can see why you are retracting what you said. What you said was "In reality, it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR."
Now it is clear that even you know you included my name by mistake.
"I said "anti-Zionist", not "anti-Semitic",
It means the same thing is this context, as much of the time people with a rabid hatred of Jews use the word 'zionist' as a code word. Referring to such views as antisemitic cuts through the crap.
"Say you're "not aware" of it?"
Why yes. Have you ever heard of this? Unlike you, if I do not know about something, I don't comment on it. I am unaware of any antisemitic views from Hitchens that you referred to, as I have not researched it, so I refuse to comment on something I don't know anything about. Try it sometime.
Here's a relevant speech from a great liberal thinker who was easily able to cut through the crap on many things. It should put to bed the ideas of those who attempt to mask hatred of Jews with supposedly milder terms like 'anti-Zionist':
--------------
"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so."
From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."
Well then, Christopher Hitchens was an anti-Semite. You declaring your ignorance on the subject doesn't change the fact that Hitchens has said of himself, "I am an Anti-Zionist. I'm one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were no Palestinians". [source Wikipedia]
Hitchens was of Jewish descent and described himself as "anti-Zionist". Anti-Semetic and anti-Zionist are not the same thing, despite the MLK quote you did have time to research. MLK was right that a lot of people who say they are anti-Zionist are actually anti-Semetic, but they aren't the same thing (hence the two different words).
dmarks: Try it sometime.
Try being willfully ignorant because knowing and acknowledging the facts would hurt my argument? No thanks. That's what a coward would do.
dmarks: You blundered. I can see why you are retracting what you said.
I made no blunder and am retracting nothing. I said both Will and you (dmarks) portray individuals that you (both Will and dmarks) disagree with in the most unfavorable light possible. Then I gave examples for Will. Next I gave examples for you (dmarks). It isn't my fault that you (dmarks) got confused and thought I was talking about you (dmarks) when I was talking about Will (not dmarks).
No, I was not willfully ignorant. I was merely stating that I was not going to venture an opinion on the subject because I did not know the facts on it.
You seem to think it is a bad idea to stay quiet on something you don't know nothing about. That's quite telling.
"I made no blunder and am retracting nothing."
You did. What followed was a revision of what you said, that gives it entirely new meaning. But what you said, that BOTH myself and Will had made certain statements about FDR and Moore, was incorrect. You goofed.
I am of course referring to your earlier whopper, not your stealth "oops" way to get around it with the dishonest tactic of re-wording your statement into something reasonable.
"Then I gave examples for Will."
You gave examples for both. The only way around this is for you to delete the comment where you accused both of us of these statements.
"It isn't my fault that you (dmarks) got confused"
The only thing I can be blamed for is actually reading and understanding your comment.
To repeat what WD said:
"was just stating the facts. In reality, it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR."
Not the use of the word "and". And the use of those names. You bungled. You may wish you had said something that was true instead. so why not just admit that.
The simplest and most effect way to correct your mistake is to remove "and dmarks".
I'm not admitting something I didn't do... so you can stuff this "goofed" BS. You got confused and are now trying to blame me for your blunder. Why not just admit you misread what I wrote and move on?
And, yes, you are being willfully ignorant of Hitchens' anti-Semitic views* because you don't want to talk about them. Because it makes you look silly for defending him... when you usually viciously attack anyone who has said anything remotely anti-Israel.
dmarks: You seem to think it is a bad idea to stay quite on something you don't know nothing about. That's quite telling.
I think no such thing. What's quite telling is you refusing to follow a link and read a couple of sentences. Because you don't want to know anything about Hitchens' anti-Semitism*. I think what it tells is that you're pretty gutless.
dmarks: You prove my point about tossing out the "war criminal" insult without evidence. Hitchens is exactly as guilty of them as bush is.
You're lying. I've given you the evidence MANY times. And Hitchens cannot be "exactly as guilty". He was never the commander-in-chief. Going to war was not his decision to make. Unless you believe Hitchens did serve as CIC. If so, please let us all know when you think that happened.
(*Views that are actually anti-Zionist, but the two are interchangeable according to dmarks).
Yes, Ive criticized FDR (I've additionally praised him as a great war-time President). His N.R.A. was an absolutely moronic initiative that probably retarded recovery (John Maynard Keynes agreed, btw). And his A.A.A. was almost as dumb (destroying crops and livestock at a time that people in the country were going hungry). The man also markedly increased excise taxes (a very regressive form of taxation), failed to support an anti-lynching bill, interned tens of thousands of innocent American civilians simply because of ethnicity, thoroughly abused the patronage system, tried to pack the Supreme Court with lackeys, raised the income tax to an unimaginable level, used the I.R.S. as a weapon against political opponents, browbeat businesses as opposed to working with them, and wasted billions of dollars on idiotic make-work jobs. Look, I have no idea how good a war-time President that Al Smith would have been, but he certainly would have been far better for the U.S. economy, IMHO.
Will (not dmarks*), I said you portrayed him in the worst possible light, which you just did. I never said you called anyone names. I've never called anyone names. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You have, however, compared FDR to a Biblical plague, which I think is a lot worse then calling someone a name.
(*This comment has nothing to do with dmarks or anything he's written.)
Where did I liken him to a Biblical plague?......A person who espouses Islamic warmongering views isn't an Islamic warmonger (I strongly disagreed with Mr. Hitchens on the Iraqi War, as you know)? And, please, don't forget, I very much LIKE Harry Truman, JFK, Al Smith, and even Clinton. Hell, dude, I admitted that FDR was a great war time President.
21 comments:
I didn't know he had ceased to exist. Not being a fan, I can't say that I care that much. Anyway, I say thank goodness his combination of some Liberal views along with his Islamophoic warmongering views are not that inimitable.
He had absolutely no Islamophobic warmongering. You are lying about a dead man. Show some respect!
But he did realize the very real danger of theocracy, and the danger of allowing the aggression of genocidal terror states to go unchecked.
He was no warmonger of any kind. Wanting people to fight back in an already ongoing war is not warmongering. In fact, it ends wars.
dmarks, have you noticed how wd is always portraying individuals that he disagrees with in the most unfavorable light possible? It's not enough simply to disagree with somebody. He also has to vilify and denigrate them and to absolutely impugn their motivation as well. It's really starting to get scary lately.
Will: dmarks, have you noticed how wd is always portraying individuals that he disagrees with in the most unfavorable light possible?
I was just stating the facts. In reality, it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR.
And, if I had cited Christopher Hitchens to support an argument I was making... you can rest assurred that dmarks would be criticizing Hitchens for his "anti-Zionist" views.
Hitchen's was a wayyyyyyyyy better writer then WD could or would ever hope to be.
Hitchen's did some of the most thought and debate provoking work ever done,be it from politics to religion...a very interesting man.
I watched him for a few minutes and I don't remember where.
He rubbed me the same way Rachel Maddow does.
May he rest in peace.
I'm glad Dmarks respects atheists. Bless you Dmarks.
wd, you accused the man of being an "Islamophobic War-Mongerer". That isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And like Mr. dmarks said, maybe let the body cool for a scootch before you slander the poor bastard.
I agree, Russ. He was definitely worth the price of admission.
Typical, the far left vilifying a man with a great deal or rational sense.
wd carries water for the most absurd methinks.
Yawn...
Will: Next he will call Hitchens a war criminal. He's done this in the past to individuals he dislikes. Not for any reason, not with repsect to any evidence, but just as a means of insult.
WD said: "it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR."
Let me all your bluff. Show me ONE place where I had such an unbalanced statement about either FDR or Michael Moore.
As for Hitchens antisemitic views which you referred to, I am not aware of any of them.
Truth: I respect atheists, of course. I respect all faiths. And I specifically respect Hitchens' expression of his.
-------------
All: Views about Hitchens are kind of a litmus test as to whom here is a critical thinker, and which one of us is an unhinged idealogue. Only one of us, in fact, decided to grind some axes and ignore any facts or balance.
dmarks: Next he will call Hitchens a war criminal. He's done this in the past to individuals he dislikes.
That is a bald-faced lie. Hitchens was never in a position where he could make decisions that could be considered war crimes. Although he did support bush's war crimes. So I'd say he was a war crimes supporter, but not a war criminal himself.
Also, you're implying that I've called bush a war criminal because I "dislike" him, which is another bald-faced lie. I've presented facts to back up my allegations. You may disagree with them, but that does not mean I haven't presented them... and rested my case solely on my dislike of bush.
dmarks: Let me call your bluff. Show me ONE place where I had such an unbalanced statement...
No "bluff". What I describe actually happened. I can provide links to the posts if you like. But you seem to be confused. I quoted Will, therefore the "you" I was referring to was Will and NOT dmarks.
dmarks: As for Hitchens anti-Semitic views which you referred to, I am not aware of any of them.
I said "anti-Zionist", not "anti-Semitic", but I don't think you know the difference. Also, this is how you respond when you're informed of a view you disagree with from a person you're defending? Say you're "not aware" of it? Jeez... I wonder if dmarks will ever become aware... or just continue to feign ignorance?
WD said: "Although he did support bush's war crimes"
You prove my point about tossing out the "war criminal" insult without evidence. Hitchens is exactly as guilty of them as Bush is.
"So I'd say he was a war crimes supporter,"
Talk about a bald-faced lie.
"No "bluff". What I describe actually happened. I can provide links to the posts if you like. But you seem to be confused. I quoted Will, therefore the "you" I was referring to was Will and NOT dmarks."
You blundered. I can see why you are retracting what you said. What you said was "In reality, it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR."
Now it is clear that even you know you included my name by mistake.
"I said "anti-Zionist", not "anti-Semitic",
It means the same thing is this context, as much of the time people with a rabid hatred of Jews use the word 'zionist' as a code word. Referring to such views as antisemitic cuts through the crap.
"Say you're "not aware" of it?"
Why yes. Have you ever heard of this? Unlike you, if I do not know about something, I don't comment on it. I am unaware of any antisemitic views from Hitchens that you referred to, as I have not researched it, so I refuse to comment on something I don't know anything about. Try it sometime.
Here's a relevant speech from a great liberal thinker who was easily able to cut through the crap on many things. It should put to bed the ideas of those who attempt to mask hatred of Jews with supposedly milder terms like 'anti-Zionist':
--------------
"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so."
From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."
dmarks: "Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
Well then, Christopher Hitchens was an anti-Semite. You declaring your ignorance on the subject doesn't change the fact that Hitchens has said of himself, "I am an Anti-Zionist. I'm one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were no Palestinians". [source Wikipedia]
Hitchens was of Jewish descent and described himself as "anti-Zionist". Anti-Semetic and anti-Zionist are not the same thing, despite the MLK quote you did have time to research. MLK was right that a lot of people who say they are anti-Zionist are actually anti-Semetic, but they aren't the same thing (hence the two different words).
dmarks: Try it sometime.
Try being willfully ignorant because knowing and acknowledging the facts would hurt my argument? No thanks. That's what a coward would do.
dmarks: You blundered. I can see why you are retracting what you said.
I made no blunder and am retracting nothing. I said both Will and you (dmarks) portray individuals that you (both Will and dmarks) disagree with in the most unfavorable light possible. Then I gave examples for Will. Next I gave examples for you (dmarks). It isn't my fault that you (dmarks) got confused and thought I was talking about you (dmarks) when I was talking about Will (not dmarks).
WD said: "Try being willfully ignorant"
No, I was not willfully ignorant. I was merely stating that I was not going to venture an opinion on the subject because I did not know the facts on it.
You seem to think it is a bad idea to stay quiet on something you don't know nothing about. That's quite telling.
"I made no blunder and am retracting nothing."
You did. What followed was a revision of what you said, that gives it entirely new meaning. But what you said, that BOTH myself and Will had made certain statements about FDR and Moore, was incorrect. You goofed.
I am of course referring to your earlier whopper, not your stealth "oops" way to get around it with the dishonest tactic of re-wording your statement into something reasonable.
"Then I gave examples for Will."
You gave examples for both. The only way around this is for you to delete the comment where you accused both of us of these statements.
"It isn't my fault that you (dmarks) got confused"
The only thing I can be blamed for is actually reading and understanding your comment.
To repeat what WD said:
"was just stating the facts. In reality, it is YOU and dmarks who do this... you with your criticisms of Liberals like Michale Moore and FDR."
Not the use of the word "and". And the use of those names. You bungled. You may wish you had said something that was true instead. so why not just admit that.
The simplest and most effect way to correct your mistake is to remove "and dmarks".
I'm not admitting something I didn't do... so you can stuff this "goofed" BS. You got confused and are now trying to blame me for your blunder. Why not just admit you misread what I wrote and move on?
And, yes, you are being willfully ignorant of Hitchens' anti-Semitic views* because you don't want to talk about them. Because it makes you look silly for defending him... when you usually viciously attack anyone who has said anything remotely anti-Israel.
dmarks: You seem to think it is a bad idea to stay quite on something you don't know nothing about. That's quite telling.
I think no such thing. What's quite telling is you refusing to follow a link and read a couple of sentences. Because you don't want to know anything about Hitchens' anti-Semitism*. I think what it tells is that you're pretty gutless.
dmarks: You prove my point about tossing out the "war criminal" insult without evidence. Hitchens is exactly as guilty of them as bush is.
You're lying. I've given you the evidence MANY times. And Hitchens cannot be "exactly as guilty". He was never the commander-in-chief. Going to war was not his decision to make. Unless you believe Hitchens did serve as CIC. If so, please let us all know when you think that happened.
(*Views that are actually anti-Zionist, but the two are interchangeable according to dmarks).
Yes, Ive criticized FDR (I've additionally praised him as a great war-time President). His N.R.A. was an absolutely moronic initiative that probably retarded recovery (John Maynard Keynes agreed, btw). And his A.A.A. was almost as dumb (destroying crops and livestock at a time that people in the country were going hungry). The man also markedly increased excise taxes (a very regressive form of taxation), failed to support an anti-lynching bill, interned tens of thousands of innocent American civilians simply because of ethnicity, thoroughly abused the patronage system, tried to pack the Supreme Court with lackeys, raised the income tax to an unimaginable level, used the I.R.S. as a weapon against political opponents, browbeat businesses as opposed to working with them, and wasted billions of dollars on idiotic make-work jobs. Look, I have no idea how good a war-time President that Al Smith would have been, but he certainly would have been far better for the U.S. economy, IMHO.
There, I criticized FDR and DIDN'T call him names. See how easy it is?
Will (not dmarks*), I said you portrayed him in the worst possible light, which you just did. I never said you called anyone names. I've never called anyone names. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You have, however, compared FDR to a Biblical plague, which I think is a lot worse then calling someone a name.
(*This comment has nothing to do with dmarks or anything he's written.)
Where did I liken him to a Biblical plague?......A person who espouses Islamic warmongering views isn't an Islamic warmonger (I strongly disagreed with Mr. Hitchens on the Iraqi War, as you know)? And, please, don't forget, I very much LIKE Harry Truman, JFK, Al Smith, and even Clinton. Hell, dude, I admitted that FDR was a great war time President.
Post a Comment