Comments on: Grapple in the Apple!

Grapple in the Apple!

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:28:51 -0800

Debate Site Grapple in the Apple! Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway argue live, now, about the Iraq War. Sorry about the minimal FPP, but it's all about the ~~boxing match~~ debate.

By: reality

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:29:58 -0800

Damn. I messed up the link description.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:35:18 -0800

Yes, I was about to post this. Although I don't know how much available streaming capacity there is. Go Hitchens!

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:35:56 -0800

The Pacifica crowd is an 11 on the 10 vomit scale.

By: loquax

loquax — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:36:35 -0800

Hitchens on Galloway

By: reality

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:37:28 -0800

I think there's extra streaming capacity on Live365 or whatever that's called.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:38:12 -0800

Sane commentary via LGF.com here

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:39:25 -0800

Did anyone else read that as Christopher Walken? That would be the coolest!

By: loquax

loquax — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:41:58 -0800

Nuts, looks like there's no more room at any of the various feeds.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:43:13 -0800

I find Galloway's overnight international stardom amusing.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:44:41 -0800

Two blowhards contribute hot air to global warming

By: freebird

freebird — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:45:01 -0800

Sane commentary via LGF.com here Hahaha! This must be the kinder gentler PP I keep hearing about, because I think he just made funny!

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:45:39 -0800

That's not commentary, PP, that's a circle-jerk.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:46:52 -0800

fleacircus, you may have a point. Actually you do. The thing is, I'm not sure how much better Mefi is....ok, a little, but not enough.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:47:20 -0800

I'm listening... when is it supposed to start? Is it over?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:48:11 -0800

it's starting now.

By: reality

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:49:06 -0800

It has started, but apparently the streaming capacity is limited, which is a shame. This should be on CSPAN, really.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:49:37 -0800

It says that the debate was scheduled for 6PM eastern. I'm confused.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:50:12 -0800

more commentary on irc.ieatttapes.com (unofficial Mefi chat)

By: reality

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:52:07 -0800

no, 6pm was the "preshow"

By: archaic

archaic — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:53:20 -0800

Is Hitchens still alive?

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:53:41 -0800

Realplayer video feed (BBC realplayer install)

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:58:51 -0800

Hitch has spent a few minutes taking the "ends justify the means" argument on Iraq, combined with his optimistic viewpoint. Now he's unloading on Galloway a little, shaking the "oil for food" shame stick.

By: reality

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:04:11 -0800

Galloway is massive asshat.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:06:13 -0800

Wow, Galloway has said nothing in five minutes other than insulting Hitchens.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:06:34 -0800

Cindy Sheehan is an asshat, too...

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:06:57 -0800

I used to like Scotish accents.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:07:34 -0800

What? Are you saying calling someone a slug is an insult?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:08:40 -0800

Michael Ashcroft?

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:14:57 -0800

Somehow I don't think they're going to find a middle ground.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:16:02 -0800

Insulting Hitchens?! He spent the first few minutes thanking Hitchens for a few of his previous stances which were, ironically enough, consistant with Galloway's position. The only thing Galloway said which could be considered insulting in the first few minutes was that Hitchens shouldn't accuse Galloway of "slobbering" while at the same time interrupting Galloway's time. Hitchens called Galloway a profiteer and co-conspirator, when there is not only no evidence proving this, but no legal charges filed in either the United States or in Great Britain against him. Where is the beef?

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:18:13 -0800

I think Galloway called Hitchens some sort of slug/butterfly smeared with poop like a chimney sweep. It wasn't quite clear.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:23:17 -0800

At the very least, Hitchens is one of the few war boosters who actively defends his position. Perhaps he doth protest too much, but I admire the fact that he is able to stand up for his position, as many, many of the pro-war crowd have lapsed into extreme laziness when trying to defend why they support the war.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:23:38 -0800

The Pacifica crowd is an 11 on the 10 vomit scale. Edit: The Pacifica crowd is at 11 on a vomit scale of 1 to 10. Or something. Sane commentary? Stop bogarting, dope-hoard. *thunks ParisParamus in the head with a Galaxy-class LART*

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:26:34 -0800

Christopher Hitchens is going on about slobbering again... and calling the Johns Hopkins report and the Lancet report "crazed fabrications"? What an idiot.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:29:10 -0800

Hitchens' whole defense of the war seems to be that good people were killed by the insurgency, therefore the insurgency is evil. So, I take it that the 150,000+ Iraqis we've killed were all evil, and therefore we're the good guys...

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:29:17 -0800

That got tedious quickly. I'd be more interested in a debate between Hitchens and Juan Cole.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:38:37 -0800

That got tedious quickly. I'd be more interested in a debate between Hitchens and Juan Cole. I'd be more interested in a debate between Hitchens and my right cross. Followed by a brief aside between him and my left hook and then, just so he remembered my thesis peppering the point with Thai kicks to his bloated misshapen abdomen.

By: reality

reality — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:43:58 -0800

tkchrist: sounds like you must be a pacifist

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:48:55 -0800

sounds like you must be a pacifist Was it that obvious? That is not to say I wouldn't also like to debate Mr. Galloway with a firm pimp slap.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:11:03 -0800

Htichens is choking badly, after being caught arguing against the facts. Now he's lecturing the audience, telling them he hopes that they feel good about supporting the Iraqis killing American soldiers, and that they should be concerned that they're "on telly".

By: thecjm

thecjm — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:17:02 -0800

God I hate Galloway so much. Being on the same side as him hurts.

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:40:40 -0800

I tuned in very late, but Hitchens' argument in the final five minutes seems to be 'solidarity' and 'you don't desert your friends'. Apparently, even if they're wrong. He also appears to have been wrong on the definition of 'popinjay' as 'an archery target', although my source is the (very weak) dictionary.com for that. I don't have a subscription to OED, so I can't be authoritative there. I thought Galloway's final five minutes were enormously stronger. His argument is that we are not safer for having invaded, and in fact we have put Islamic fundamentalism into power it didn't previously have. He used a quote from someone whose name didn't stick in my head: 'not just a crime, but a blunder'.

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:56:57 -0800

He also appears to have been wrong on the definition of 'popinjay' as 'an archery target', although my source is the (very weak) dictionary.com for that. I don't have a subscription to OED, so I can't be authoritative there.

OED says: 3. The figure of a parrot fixed on a pole as a mark to shoot at. Obs. exc. Hist.

God I hate Galloway so much. Being on the same side as him hurts.

By: archaic

archaic — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:12:05 -0800

OK, Hitchens: Former Trotskyite who attacked first gulf war but now is friends with Wolfowitz and Chalabi. Do we even need to acknowledge his existence? Not to mention he is a tippler, people, please.

By: maryh

maryh — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:25:06 -0800

So which plummy accent won?

By: lalochezia

lalochezia — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:30:17 -0800

I've just come back from the debate at baruch. It was a packed house - *both* the pacifica and limbaugh crowds were out in force. It was fascinating to watch lefties (older hippies / socialist worker types / pierced kids) and righties (buttoned down across the age range) scream *booooooo* at some particularly contentious point only to realize they were sitting next to their enemy. The looks of polite disdain through nausea to barely suppressed impulses to strangle were amusing to observe. Of course, one of the disappointing things about the debate was that both debaters occasionally veered from their stated goals of phlegmatic character assassination to actually stating their positions on the Iraq war and surrounding issues based on their particular brand of evidence. Naturally, this being a political debate, the opposition ignored most of these evidentiary statements about potentially important points and got back to tearing trivial (but extremely funny) rhetorical holes in each others well oiled limey arseholes. Hitchens started off with a more substantive debate, actually listing his points about the regions development : galloway just waded in with bombastic insults from the get go. After a while, the positions were reversed, with galloway making points to do with the geopolitics that he'd ignored earlier and hitchens (by now) appealing to the crowds patriotism and doing the fey-I'm-quietly-demeaning-your-sad-existance-with-witticisms routine. By the end, very little new was being said. It would have been a great drinking game if they had handed out vodka and you had to drink when the following words were used: "slug" "gutter" "imperialism" "racism" "slobbering" "sewer" and "bush". Summary: They were both suitably nasty to each other to make a good evening out.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:39:16 -0800

PP: Cindy Sheehan is an asshat, too... Glad to see you're really commiting to being a higher level of decorum to the place, like you promised way back when. You conservatives are all the same once you've blown your wad. Kiss kiss.

By: kingfisher, his musclebound cat

kingfisher, his musclebound cat — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:36:11 -0800

Just got back from this debate and a few gins. I got out of it a few gins, a nice cellphone photo of Hitchens sweating on the street, and a profoundly greater respect for Yeats. The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Anyway, let me say first that I am opposed to the war, but that I found Hitchens, live at least, far more persuasive than that shrieking gnome, Galloway. Nonetheless, they were really arguing two different points when you boil it all down. Hitchens did not address the execution of the war, but did make a good argument for the ethical war and the fact that this may have been a case for it. Galloway seemed far more arguing that each state has a right to develop as it may no matter how fucked up a course it might take -- this does not only preclude war, but other interventions (such as our involvement in Afghanistan that helped form the mujahideen). I felt Hitchens needed to address one thing, and let's say we take his argument that this was a just and necessary war: what happens when a just and necessary war is prosecuted by an unethical and opportunistic force, which is in itself unethical and less concerned with human rights than profit. For George Galloway I offer only this -- you missed a perfect "intervention" joke, you twit. For the audience. Fucking creepy, wonderful, sweaty madhouse of a night. You made my gum taste better, my knee hurt, my misanthropy soar, and my liver cry out for those lovely plymouth gin martinis I sipped later in the night.

By: kingfisher, his musclebound cat

kingfisher, his musclebound cat — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:37:37 -0800

Hey lalochezia! I was the guy in the balcony.

By: rodney stewart

rodney stewart — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:41:09 -0800

So which plummy accent won? obviously never met a scotsman. Git it up yie bag 'o shite

By: spacediver

spacediver — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:29:52 -0800

is there a recorded version of this debate available?

By: Asef Jil

Asef Jil — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:52:22 -0800

http://kpftx.org/

By: adamvasco

adamvasco — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:08:31 -0800

Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology - Popinjay (archaic) - parrot C13. - vain or conceited person C16 Sounds like Hitchens.

By: johnny novak

johnny novak — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:39:10 -0800

the cjm agreed, you can be against the war and against Galloway. , as far as I am concenred is a slimy, perma-tanned crook, who will stoop as low as is necessary to find a constituency.

By: athenian

athenian — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:05:23 -0800

And has used my former constituency of Bethnal Green & Bow as a platform for his international posturing, at the expense of the constituents (who deserve a proper MP) and their former MP who (though she was a bit Blairite) knew what her priorities should be.