Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on April 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
“Don’t know what came over me: the dear boy did suddenly seem extremely sapphic, yet I think my intuitions must have been scrambled all the same, since what I was actually thinking was: ‘Andrew really wants to have Barack Obama’s f*cking child’. Clearly some confusion of categories on my part.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Chris Matthews beat Andrew to it. He’s already pregnant.
Entelechy on April 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Um yeah, I really wish they’d stop referring to Anxious Andy as a conservative. That’s like saying Hitchens is a Quaker.
spmat on April 12, 2008 at 10:11 PM
The Hitch!
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Hitch nails it shut once again.
SuperCool on April 12, 2008 at 10:16 PM
And where, pray tell, is Hitch wrong?
/Leftist apologiatti off
Good Lt on April 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
spmat,
If Andy is a conservative, then Hitchens is Opus Dei.
RBMN on April 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Pay Per View cat fight. Sullivan and Matthews.
hepcat on April 12, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I saw that interview and yea - he does.
Agrippa2k on April 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
V15J on April 12, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Is Hitchens jealous or was it an epiphany?
I’ve suspected the democrat convention would be vicious, and wonder just how violent it gets.
rockhauler on April 12, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Odds are he’s not a “Conservative”
Chakra Hammer on April 12, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Btw, Sullivan gets to be called “Conservative” and nobody can question it, but McCain and Rudy are questioned all the time..
Chakra Hammer on April 12, 2008 at 10:50 PM
Since when is any gay, catholic who is in love with Obama considered a conservative? The Hawaii Republican Party today showed me it has no clue what conservatism is either. I should go to bed before someone calls me and tells me that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are commies.
HawaiiLwyr on April 12, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Dude I watched the whole segment in question. Sullivan is NOT conservative. He wrote a book about ‘conservatives’, but his life experience and world view (especially that of overly fawning on Obama) make him a liberal.
He said that it was good that Obama distanced himself from Wright, but Obama looks at Wright as a FATHER FIGURE. How is it that someone can distance themselves from someone who is a father figure. Sullivan ain’t no conservative.
Yes, McCain and EVEN RUDY are more conservative than that Sullivan person. I don’t understand why this is even a charade.
ThackerAgency on April 12, 2008 at 10:58 PM
OMG!
BJ* on April 12, 2008 at 10:58 PM
The same Obama he is in love with that has THE MOST LIBERAL VOTING RECORD IN THE SENATE. You can’t support Obama and be Conservative. Impossible.
ThackerAgency on April 12, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Exactly.
Chakra Hammer on April 12, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I can’t say it. It would be too easy…
Grayson on April 12, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Sullivan is as conservative as John McCain- meaning real conservatives are once again being told to f**k off by the junta that has taken over the GOP. By all accounts it isn’t working and the rat bastard traitors like McCain are going eventually have to admit that they need social conservatives to win in November.
highhopes on April 12, 2008 at 11:13 PM
It’s a story of confusion and denial.A story about man and
his perverse desire to bear another mans child,it is sick,
twisted and yet so convincingly surreal,you will laugh,cry
and yes you will be sick!
It will be uplifting journey of mans triumph over nature
and an abomination to G!ds Laws over nine months,and then
the feathers will hit the fan and the chickens will come
home to roost!
Is he a she,she a he or a complex mixture of ac/dc,
you will be moved and touched where you never dreamed
possible,*5 stars!
canopfor on April 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Holy Crap! /Strong Bad
- The Cat
MirCat on April 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Sullivan is a conservative. He just isn’t a social conservative. He would say, as I say, that he is a Classical Liberal. So in a sense yes, he is a liberal, by 1700s reckoning.
Disliking Bush and disliking Bush’s appointments, namely Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, doesn’t a liberal one make. I disagree with Sully on a huge number of points but I would say that he is a conservative at heart.
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM
It is confusing. I happened to hear Rush Limbaugh’s famous “male lesbian” dialog with the man in that matter; he was a guy who liked gal things, and also liked gals; he sounded like a “valley gal-guy,” and it was terribly funny in a nice way, and Rush ended up liking him. Hitchens’s comments involve more complication. How could Sully be “Sapphic” about Obama unless both he and Obama were womanish? Is the creature under all those Obama onion layers — a chick?
ForNow on April 12, 2008 at 11:19 PM
highhopes
“real conservatives”?
Bullsh**. That “junta” you speak of is a very healthy portion of the big tent we are trying to maintain. If the social cons stood alone they would never seat a President again.
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Conservatives have Obamagasms?
VolMagic on April 12, 2008 at 11:21 PM
.
But given his defining stances against this Administration - the war badly handled, interrogation rules, Gitmo, spending, more transparency - the obvious choice would be McCain over Obama.
So: Why not McCain?
Emotionally, Sullivan is a liberal. Intellectually, a libertarian. Too often his heart wins out over his head.
SteveMG on April 12, 2008 at 11:25 PM
HAH.
We must have video of this. Pure gold.
MadisonConservative on April 12, 2008 at 11:27 PM
The “Indie”? I say the “the Globe” is better. I will defend this to the death!
thatcher on April 12, 2008 at 11:31 PM
How can a Conservative love The most liberal senator?
More Liberal than Ted Kennedy?
Maybe Andrew thinks Obama is sexy
Chakra Hammer on April 12, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Hey Andrew, Barack’s a breeder and married, looks like you are to late the wrong gender..
Chakra Hammer on April 12, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Volmagic
A conservative can have an Obamagasm and not vote for me, or not consider him to be Presidential material. I don’t think Sully has really considered how authoritarian and collectivist Obama’s policies are or could be. There are a lot of the people on the right side of things taking a hard look at Obama. He is a likeable guy.
SteveMG
Hmmmm. I’m with Sully partway. Bush’s oversight of spending has been unsatisfactory, and he has been untransparent to some degree (no thanks to a hostile media). But I disagree with his positions on torture, Gitmo, etc. I don’t think people strictly segregate their emotional and intellectual sides. Sully is immersed in politics professionally and personally…and he has strong feelings on the issues, sure. But he is also well read and fairly considerate as an intellectual. Is Sully voting Obama? I knew he was sorta gay for Obama, pardon the term, but seriously? I would think McCain to be like a dream candidate for Sully. Maybe Bush scarred him.
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:35 PM
How can a conservative love any liberal senator? I ask myself that a lot around here…
Grayson on April 12, 2008 at 11:36 PM
*first line, me = him
Damn that underused preview feature…
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Chakra Hammer
“How can a Conservative love The most liberal senator?
More Liberal than Ted Kennedy?
Maybe Andrew thinks Obama is sexy”
I’m pretty sure Andy hasn’t really considered how liberal Obama might be. Obama’s personality has taken him too much. Sullivan is too influenced by rhetoric rather than action.
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:40 PM
That’s it exactly.
Every major complaint that AS has leveled against the Administration can be solved by/through McCain.
Spending, Gitmo, waterboarding/detainee rights, transparency, a more “distant” relationship with the Religious Right and on and on.
As Hitchens intimated, Sullivan’s emotions - which are liberal to be sure - are getting to him.
SteveMG on April 12, 2008 at 11:43 PM
And why not? Certain other bloggers who shall remain nameless acted like jilted lovers when Obama’s church and his racial attitudes were “revealed.”
baldilocks on April 12, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Sullivan is a Conservative and can like Obama… the same way you like Hitchens and find his logic and arguments compelling despite where that same razor sharp logic leads on other matters.
lexhamfox on April 13, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Yes, that’s right. Sullivan isn’t what they call a “movement conservative,” but he certainly is right-of-center in his general philosophical outlook.
Many people define conservatism as support for the Republican Party or for a particular policy view. But that’s a rather cramped definition. Right-of-center is half the political spectrum. And from the point nearest to the center to the point furthest to the right, there’s a lot of room for disagreement. Mussolini would have regarded all of us as weak tea.
paul006 on April 13, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Well Doctor,
I’ tired of being told I don’t have a place in the “big tent” by people like you. If social conservatives are once again in the wilderness, like they were before Ronald Reagan, it is far preferable to the vision of America people like you offer where we are forced to accept a GOP candidate who detests social conservatism, was ready to bolt to the Democrats in 2004, and has no moral grounding.
Admit it, people like you are so myopic that you consider Fred Phelps to be indicative of anybody who dares question wyour left-of-center values.
highhopes on April 13, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:35 PM
If a conservative is having an Obamagasm, then he isn’t paying attention and should not be taken seriously as a political analyst.
Yeah, he’s easy on the eyes, but whenever he opens his mouth it’s nothing but “I can solve all the world’s problems” coming out. And what does one need to solve all the world’s problems? Absolute power.
I don’t disagree that you can be sick of the Bushies and still be a conservative, I just don’t think you can fall for Obama and be a conservative.
VolMagic on April 13, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Dr. Manhattan on April 12, 2008 at 11:35 PM
BTW, hows the weather on Mars? :)
VolMagic on April 13, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I don’t know these people. Should I? Why?
winemkr on April 13, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Andrew Sullivan is NOT a gay, conservative Catholic.
I am.
D2Boston on April 13, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Quote of the
dayYear.Jaibones on April 13, 2008 at 12:55 AM
the dear boy did suddenly seem extremely sapphic
Really? A classical Greek stanza of four unrhymed lines, the first three lines in trochaic pentameter save for the third foot which is a dactyl, and the fourth line with only two feet, one a dactyl and one trochee? Man, Andrew is awesome!
bour3 on April 13, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Hitch is my hero.
World B. Free on April 13, 2008 at 1:10 AM
highhopes
I never said you didn’t have a place in “the tent.” I said you need people like me, and vice versa. Its best that we don’t alienate each other.
winemkr
“I don’t know these people. Should I? Why?”
It depends on how much free time you have. Both of these figures are somewhat controversial. Together they are some of the hardest to define politcal commentators today.
One of them is a Catholic, gay conservative who is called liberal by many, the other a ex(or current) Troyskyist leftist now thoroughly disgusted by the left for a number of reasons.
They are pretty interesting people. Hitchens in particular is a somewhat important figure who will be talked about for quite some time after his death.
Dr. Manhattan on April 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I don’t know about that. The guy’s interesting sure, but define “quite some time.”
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Despite all his atheist BS, you can’t help but love a guy who says things like that.
WasatchMan on April 13, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Sully and the Hitch have been friendly and mutually respectful expatriates despite years of disagreements, most recently over Iraq. Now, however, it appears that BHO has caused a rift. So much for Obama being a uniter, not a divider.
Terrie on April 13, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Compounded by the following:
Terrorist Fundraisers 4 Obama
h/t ohioagainstterror.blogspot.com
Connie on April 13, 2008 at 1:44 AM
Sullivan is a Moby.
MSimon on April 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM
Sower of Discord is my nickname for BHO.
baldilocks on April 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Larry Craig’s American Conservative Union Lifetime Voting Score: 93.4 out of 100!
What is a “Real Conservative” these days?
alphie on April 13, 2008 at 2:24 AM
There is nothing funny about Hitchens’ quote. If there is any love affair, it’s Hot Air with Christopher Hitchens. I’ve never found him to be anything but angry, vile and egotistical.
Allah is dredging from the bottom for the “quote of the day.”
Skidd on April 13, 2008 at 2:38 AM
I’m pretty sure that to be able to call yourself a card carying conservative you cannot have a love affair with the MOST Liberal Senator Barack Obama or even the 20th most liberal for that matter.. it is out of 100.. If you pick a liberal you be a liberal.
Chakra Hammer on April 13, 2008 at 3:21 AM
The whole show is here.
I thought I heard Hitch say that but wasn’t sure.
He eviscerated Andi and his ridiculous arguments.
benrand on April 13, 2008 at 4:25 AM
Whoops, kinda of early…
http://www.youtube.com/user/balooeyezz
benrand on April 13, 2008 at 4:28 AM
Chris Matthews is currently pregnant with Andrew Sullivan’s baby.
Matthews’ first baby was Obama’s.
Just to be clear.
We don’t want any confusion as to “who’s your daddy.”
Imagine Matthews, Sullivan and Hussein on Maury Povich Show doing a paternity test.
Embarrassing.
Indy Conservative on April 13, 2008 at 5:06 AM
If you noticed, Chris Matthews is “the baby maker” in any relationship.
He’s the one stuck with the pregnancy. Poor guy.
I guess the reason is:
He got the biggest womb, and he provides ‘rush delivery.’
Indy Conservative on April 13, 2008 at 5:16 AM
Hitechens is great - he’s an iconoclast.
I suspect that his most strongly held belief is in gin and tonic with a slice of lemon but that’s no matter - he will have succeeded in enraging a satisfyingly large cross-section of PC puritans.
Ares on April 13, 2008 at 6:15 AM
And the book that the media says turned Andrew Sullivan into the TV Spokesperson For All Conservatives Everywhere isn’t even a positive one.
It’s about how “we” conservatives lost our souls.
The three previous books he wrote were all about the virtues of homosexuality. I don’t claim to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I don’t want anybody lumping his soul in the same category as mine.
logis on April 13, 2008 at 7:21 AM
“Mussolini would have regarded all of us as weak tea.”
I should think so! Mussolini was a collectivist, a socialist and finally a fascist. His brand of politics being at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from my brand of paleoconservative. Mussolini would have gladly embraced the collectivist and socialist impulse embodied by the modern Democratic party. He, in fact, might well have blanched at the tactics used by our Dhimmicrats as being a bit, well, heavy handed.
Charles Martel on April 13, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Social Conservatism is Fascism. Why do social conservatives feel the need to legislate others’ behavior? I’m conservative(libertarian)on everything but “social conservatism”. When it comes to abortion, most people have a problem with the government entering personal medical decisions. I don’t want my tax dollars going toward abortions, then again I don’t want to tell someone they can’t “sin”. That’s between them, their God if they choose to believe in one, and their Ob/Gyn(You know-”abortion doctors”-the ones playing with Unicorns). Social Conservatism is a Fascist concept that will kill the Republican party, with its members forming the New Libertarian party. It’ll take a few lost elections to socialists for this to happen, but happen it will. My Two Cents……………
adamsmith on April 13, 2008 at 8:30 AM
I heard that comment by Hitch at the time. It was worth it to see Mr. PC Russert squirm and Sullivan did laugh.
RobCon on April 13, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I guess Sullivan got “Hitch” slapped. I have seen Hitch debate twice and it happends often.
RobCon on April 13, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Mabye he just wants to be gobsmacked by him.
James on April 13, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Social Conservatism is Fascism
Then the US has been living in a fascist dictatorship since the beginning. There has been legislation of prevailing morality, which has been heavily Christian, from the first laws passed in the colonies. The country seemed to grow and prosper even without legal abortion and gay marriage and with prayer in school. The no judgment/no religion movement has a very recent vintage (about 35 years) and has its own flavors of fascism (ask Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn about how much they’re enjoying living that brave new world of social control). There is no real freedom from “sin” just because you silence those who identify it - the consequences remain.
inmypajamas on April 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Sorry to wet blanket another thread, but IF this Sullivan guy is homosexual (I assume this to be true from all I’ve read), then how exactly do the political opinions of someone who can’t figure out basic human sexual plumbing (the “in” from the “out,” as it were) carry ANY weight with anyone on this board? Is it really worth the attention? Just askin’.
splink on April 13, 2008 at 9:48 AM
There’s red meat and then there is stinky bait.
That post is definitely in the second category.
:)
Ares on April 13, 2008 at 10:12 AM
inmypajamas on April 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM
And slavery and prohibition and bans on birth control and jailing of homosexuals and Jim Crow laws. There’s another side of your wonderful Christian influence on American laws which is constantly ignored in favour of some utopian vision of a country that never existed.
Krydor on April 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
That’s an excellent point. The moonbats constantly scream that they are being (somehow) “tyrannized” by the normal people of America.
Think about it: What political issues do Teamsters, homosexuals, blacks, teachers and pornographers have in common? The answer is that they have absolutely NOTHING in common - except the ginned-up class warfare hatred engendered by the constant broadcasting of warmed-over Communist agitprops. Without that, the Democrat Party would fall apart like a house of cards.
Likewise, look at the “social” issues the Socialists try to distract us with. What on earth do things like homosexuality, Atheism and - for crying out loud - Veganism have to do with politics? Again, absolutely nothing. Of course fetishism, intolerance and - I guess - finickyness are flaws to which all of us are subject to one degree or another. But why are the pathological extremes of these personality defects so closely affiliated with a political party?
It’s because collectivism is based on the politics of fear, and nothing else. We all have flaws, but liberals take them to their ultimate extreme - turning peccadillos into “lifestyles.” This simultaneously elicits fear on opposite ends of the spectrum: fear of the ravages unapologetic antisocial behavior causes to society; and at the same time, the threat of having all your own personal dirty laundry aired in public.
Liberalism is subjectivism. Of course they realize that guilt and shame feels bad, but they take what they feel is the direct approach to the problem. Instead of trying to mitigate (or at the very least cover up) their own aberrant behavior, subjectivists see the very natural and healthy emotion of shame itself as the problem. Therefore, they seek to destroy what they see as CAUSING their guilt : in a word, us - the people who make an effort to act, more or less, within the constraints of societal norms.
OK, what we do isn’t anything like what a anyone capable of objectivity would call “Fascism,” but liberals don’t see it that way. Conservatives make liberals FEEL BAD; Adolph Hitler makes liberals FEEL BAD. To the subjectivist, those things are not just similar; they’re not even two separate but identical things; it is all one.
logis on April 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
You know I hate to break it to you but it isn’t as though atheist societies have been terribly nice either. Look up Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc. As an agnostic, I’ll take Christian America over those any day.
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Winner of the thread.
freevillage on April 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I’ll take Christian America over those any day.
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM
America is not a Christian country.
The UK is *nominally* but separation of church and state in the US means that it is de facto not a christian country.
Ares on April 13, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I meant it in regards to influence, specifically on our laws, which is what he was referring to.
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 1:18 PM
The U.S. government has been living under Fascism since at least the Wilson administration.(no, I don’t claim to be a genius by ripping off Jonah Goldberg. “Liberal Fascism” rearranged my thinking in lots of ways thanks to Mr. Goldberg)The “separation of church and state” in my opinion(this is where my genius shines through-haha)was a direct result of what happened in Salem, Massachusetts. Those people were still relatively fresh in the founders minds when they were drawing up the Constitution. No one wanted a repeat of that kind of religious influence in government again. It was another form of tyranny. James Dobson and company would do well to be teleported back to that time. I like living in the 21st century, and want the rights of sinners to be respected. Let God judge them on the way out. Religious politics, again, will be the death of the Republican party. Then again, I’m a “Cafeteria Catholic” and the talibangelists say I’m going to hell anyway, so disregard everything I’ve just written……..My Two Cents.
adamsmith on April 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Sullivan had a brief flirtation with conservatism after 9-11-2001 and through the early days of the re-invasion of Iraq.
But when President Bush wouldn’t let him marry his ‘boyfriend’ he went back to his liberal, homo-activist ways. Every once in a while since then, he seems to have a spark of common sense flash through his brain, but it doesn’t last long.
He can occasionally be kind of smart, witty and incisive but he is about as but at his best he was about as conservative as Olympia Snowe, and on average he is one half step to the right of Ted Kennedy.
The boy is no conservative.
LegendHasIt on April 13, 2008 at 2:51 PM
but he is about asDOH!
LegendHasIt on April 13, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Political correctness is a disease. Nuff said.
Livefreeordie on April 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Doesn’t matter how brilliant one is in any field - if you pervert the most basic and obvious functions of the human body, doubt should rightly be cast upon anything else you have to say.
Unless, of course, you are one of the four or five people in the WHOLE WORLD who actually believed the recent “news” that a “man” is pregnant. In which case…well…
splink on April 13, 2008 at 3:01 PM
…in that case I’ve said too much to you already.
splink on April 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Grayson,
I was providing a counterpoint to the wonders of Christian influenced law by showing the negative impact of same. Nice Strawman, though.
Thought police are thought police, doesn’t matter if they choose a hammer & sickle or a cross to spread their ideology. Shiny jackboots or polyester suits: the uniform is irrelevant, the message is the same.
Krydor on April 13, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I saw that russert show. Right after Hitchens said that, sullivan said”Ououou, that means I’d have to touch…..!!!! Eeeeek!” He got very pale and ran off the set.
peacenprosperity on April 13, 2008 at 3:27 PM
And I was taking issue with your “counterpoint.” First because it seemed to imply that there was some superior alternative, presumably non-Christian. My point was that the things you mentioned are not a product of Christian-influenced laws. All those things could and have just as easily existed in non-Christian countries. There is no “negative impact” there because the connection between them isn’t even fit to be called tenuous. Don’t accuse me of utilizing a strawman argument when yours was flawed to begin with.
Furthermore, your point about those things being ignored in our country is equally ridiculous. We are reminded daily of all that America has done wrong. Very rarely is it mentioned what America has done right.
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Not only did Hitchens make that remark but he was openly laughing at some of the stupid stuff sullivan was saying. I had read some of his writings but this was my first opportunity to see him on tv. They guy doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body, he is post modern/politically correct to the core. He’s about as conservative as David Brooks. Hmm, similarity there? Maybe the later stages of their affliction.
peacenprosperity on April 13, 2008 at 3:39 PM
My point was that the things you mentioned are not a product of Christian-influenced laws.
Grayson
Except that each and every one of them most certainly was. Prohibition was a direct result of the influence of the Temperance Movement which was a Christian movement.
The illegality of contraception which led to a huge black market in condoms at the turn of the century was clearly the product of Christian meddling. Same people who screeched about the pill. Be fruitful and multiply.
The fine Christians of the South used scripture to justify slavery.
Any anti gay movement wouldn’t be an anti gay movement if Romans wasn’t included as justification to hate gays because god said so. Why can’t gays marry? Romans!
You have no idea what you are talking about. Tenuous indeed. There isn’t a historian alive who thinks Prohibition in the USA wasn’t a Christian movement. Even better, it was what we would recognize today as evangelical Christians who drove the movement.
Krydor on April 13, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Now who’s using a strawman argument? My point was that all of the things you just described can and have occurred with or without Christianity involved.
Scripture to justify slavery? What about it? A lot of things are used to justify a lot of things. How exactly does that prove the connection between Christians and slavery? Jefferson himself was an atheist and yet he owned slaves. How exactly does that work if it was a Christian thing? As a good and virtuous atheist, shouldn’t he have been against it?
You aren’t allowed to drink to this day in many Islamic countries, is that because of Christianity too?
And you’re not seriously arguing that anti-gay movements are Christian-only? Go to Iran and tell them you’re a homosexual, I’m sure they’ll be real accepting, unlike those awful Christian-influenced countries where there are Gay pride parades.
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Hitchens rules! I wish he would stop smoking though.
revolution on April 13, 2008 at 5:39 PM
“Hitch, does love his “Plymouth [Navel Strength---you can spill it on the gunpowder and it will still ignite!] Gin”, has a three pack a day habit and has a vocabulary larger than any sophomore with a major in English that I’ve known…! http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christopher_hitchens
J_Gocht on April 13, 2008 at 6:15 PM
My intuitions must also be scrambled because I can only think:
If he wants to get pregnant, the proto-sapphic way, he could only give birth to a bug
Hitch once again has nailed them, in the non-sapphic sense
entagor on April 13, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Well sure those thing all happen with or without Christianity (the vast majority of the time without.) But evil things are all MORE evil when Christians are involved.
Sure, you can point out that it’s “moronic” to claim that Christianity invented an institution that pre-dated it by ten thousand years. Or you could throw out the fact that Muslims are practicing slavery TODAY; and Atheist states make the practice universal.
But what does that any of that prove? You’re using logic against a theological argument. The claim that “Christianity is the cause of all evil in the world” is not a theorem; it’s a tenet. This is what most practitioners of the Atheist religion preach these days. The vast majority of them aren’t generally anti-religion so much as they’re specifically anti-Christ.
That’s why Hitchens is head-and-shoulders above most of the posers who pretend to be Atheists these days. He’s old school; he’s Orthodox Atheist: he hates everyone who believes everything - attacking Jerry Fallwell and Osama bin Laden with precisely equal vehemence. How many self-proclaimed “Atheists” do you see on TV with the balls to do that?
Hitchens does. The guy may be a curmudgeonly son of a bitch, but at least he’s not a hypocrite.
logis on April 13, 2008 at 6:56 PM
You don’t say…?
J_Gocht on April 13, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Allah
Do you have any other freaking pictures of Hitch you can use instead of that god-awful cigarette shot?
revolution on April 14, 2008 at 3:40 AM
Hitchens and Sullivan have been friends a long time, and I’ve heard Excitable Andy name-drop Hitchens more than once, which I suspect is not reciprocated on Hitchens part.
Maybe Hitch is getting tired of that.
Sullivan always says, ad nauseum:
1. I loved Margaret Thatcher.
2. I threw a champagne party when Ronald Reagan moved the Pershing missles to Europe.
On the other hand:
He was editor of The New Republic.
He wrote a book saying conservatives have lost their souls.
He changed his mind on Bush and Iraq after Bush confirmed his opposition to gay marriage.
He supports, as noted above, the most liberal senator’s election to the office of POTUS.
To have a coherent political ideology and party, some people must be excluded from the “big tent.”
Andrew Sullivan conservative? No.
Emotionally he wants to be, but practically… his boyfriend won’t let him.
silverfox on April 14, 2008 at 4:16 AM
Your entire post illustrates that you, and anyone who agrees with that dopey post, has no idea of the definition of fascism. I would suggest a dictionary and a credible history book.
peacenprosperity on April 14, 2008 at 7:22 AM
Grayson on April 13, 2008 at 5:11 PM
No, no, no, no. The movements and actions described were justified using scripture. Your Christian influenced laws, as you put it, also pre-date Christianity and have been used in other countries that were not Christian. So what was your point, again?
America was SUPER GREAT because Christianity dominated. Suddenly, America was not Super Great because the Christian influence was on the wane. But wait, Christians justified (through the legal apparatus) segregation, prohibition, and bans on homosexuality & birth control. They didn’t do these things because some 4000 BC village invented it. They did it, this I know, for the Bible told them so.
I don’t care that Babylonians had slaves and so forth. The topic at hand and raised by you, last I checked, was CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE on AMERICAN LAWS. If you wish to change parameters, introduce other countries and religions in order to muddy the waters, be my guest. Be aware that I know what it is you are doing.
Krydor on April 14, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Hitchens is an anti-Christ.
Those of you here who “admire” him, do not forget who you are truly “admiring”…the anti-Christ spirit.
SaintOlaf on April 14, 2008 at 1:12 PM
BTW, sullivan has written 4 books, 3 about his personal identity being dictated by what he does with his genitals and alimentary canal and 1 about how conservatives are so screwed up.
I don’t think he really exists, he’s actually a Monty Python skit.
peacenprosperity on April 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM
What, praytell, conservative views does Sullivan hold? Being conservative or liberal usually means you believe in the majority of the tenets of that political philosophy. You can’t merely call yourself a conservative and be one.
An example: I can call George Clooney gay and he can call himself gay, but unless he’s actually gay he’s not gay.
Sultry Beauty on April 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »